Any Harry Potter fans out there?

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunuggs /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, do you think that Harry dies first, and then Voldemort? Or the other way around? I mean, he HAS to kill Voldemort. Absolutely no question about that. He must destroy all Horcruxes. Now, the prophecy says something likes "they both cannont live" or something like that. However, it does not say that both can't die. Personally, I think that Voldemort dies (obvious). I don't think (but not positive) that Harry will die. I think that Dumbledore is not dead or, at the very least, is still able to communicate with Harry somehow, through some avenue. I also think that Snape is a good guy (ties in with the Dumbledore being alive). Discuss..........

Yeah, I didn't think she was going to make Snape the stereotypical outright bad guy. It would be nice for him to redeem himself. I don't think Harry has to die, but it would put a damper on anyone else trying to continue the series.

As for bad acting in the movies, What?? Can the poster comment more specifically on bad choices, delivery or technique specifically? I know a lot of people come down on Emma Watson, but reading the books, her portrail is dead on. No, the only problem inherrent to movie making is that you can't film an entire book. And in come cases, so much is missing that the story changes significantly. But to blame the actors for this would be silly.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Advil /img/forum/go_quote.gif So.. Any HP geeks around these parts? I know there are some! Reveal yourselves and join in me in discussion

Not a huge fan, but I find the movies some what entertaining..

 

[Dzjudz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for bad acting in the movies, What?? Can the poster comment more specifically on bad choices, delivery or technique specifically? I know a lot of people come down on Emma Watson, but reading the books, her portrail is dead on. No, the only problem inherrent to movie making is that you can't film an entire book. And in come cases, so much is missing that the story changes significantly. But to blame the actors for this would be silly.

Whoah, calm down there sport. I didn't think I had to explain my comment. With the bad acting in the earlier movies I'm talking about all the child actors in the first two movies. Of course the movie plots are much denser than the book plots, but that's understood since there's only so much time a movie can last. But the acting in the first few movies, especially the first two, just seems so awfully awkward to me. And in general I think Dan Radcliffe is a pretty lousy actor. No specific scenes, but every scene. IMHO of course. The last movie was a bit better though, but because the books are getting thicker and thicker (#6 the exception) this last movie seemed too rushed to me. Emma Watson is actually the best of the child actors IMO. Tom Felton (Malfoy) and Dan Radcliffe I can't stand. Most 'grown-up' actors are pretty good, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon (though I liked Richard Harris better, RIP), Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman do a fine job. But since the focus is on the child actors I don't really like the movies. Good enough explanation?

 

[beetle-juice]

double post

 

[beetle-juice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunuggs /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, do you think that Harry dies first, and then Voldemort? Or the other way around? I mean, he HAS to kill Voldemort. Absolutely no question about that. He must destroy all Horcruxes. Now, the prophecy says something likes "they both cannont live" or something like that. However, it does not say that both can't die. Personally, I think that Voldemort dies (obvious). I don't think (but not positive) that Harry will die. I think that Dumbledore is not dead or, at the very least, is still able to communicate with Harry somehow, through some avenue. I also think that Snape is a good guy (ties in with the Dumbledore being alive). Discuss..........

The way he will communicate with Harry is with his portrait in the headmaster's office.

 

[plainsong]

I'm calm, I never said otherwise, it's just usually the people with the least knowledge about acting who make the non-specific statements about what's bad, so I was wondering if you could talk about specific choices or different paths to take. So no, really, the post doesn't answer my question directly but it answers where you're coming from, so unless you have some more to say about how it could be done differently, then we can just agree to disagree.

It's one of the infuriating things when someone just blanket says "that was bad" and offers you no criticism of how to improve it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whoah, calm down there sport. I didn't think I had to explain my comment. With the bad acting in the earlier movies I'm talking about all the child actors in the first two movies. Of course the movie plots are much denser than the book plots, but that's understood since there's only so much time a movie can last. But the acting in the first few movies, especially the first two, just seems so awfully awkward to me. And in general I think Dan Radcliffe is a pretty lousy actor. No specific scenes, but every scene. IMHO of course. The last movie was a bit better though, but because the books are getting thicker and thicker (#6 the exception) this last movie seemed too rushed to me. Emma Watson is actually the best of the child actors IMO. Tom Felton (Malfoy) and Dan Radcliffe I can't stand. Most 'grown-up' actors are pretty good, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon (though I liked Richard Harris better, RIP), Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman do a fine job. But since the focus is on the child actors I don't really like the movies. Good enough explanation?

 

[rsaavedra]

Big fan here, check the lengthy comments I posted here on Head-fi after finishing the 6th book.

I think the HP books are a great read, regardless of reader age. They are so entertaining, and very smartly written.

For all the Potter fans, I highly recommend the incredibly thorough Harry Potter Lexicon pages. In particular, the entry for Horcruxes, a magical notion/entity that appeared explicitely only in the 6th book, yet it is crucial for understanding Voldemort's "immortality" and what might be involved in trying to defeat him.

 

[Vicomte]

I'm a casual fan. I always buy the new novel when it comes out, read it once, and wait for the next. I did enjoy the films, though I liked the first two best.

I never thought that Snape was a bad guy. Rowling makes him too evil-seeming and dubious to be really evil. There's definitely something more going on. I doubt his killing of Dumbledore was as it seemed, methinks that something will come up in the next book to explain why said jacking up had occured. Or not.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm calm, I never said otherwise, it's just usually the people with the least knowledge about acting who make the non-specific statements about what's bad, so I was wondering if you could talk about specific choices or different paths to take. So no, really, the post doesn't answer my question directly but it answers where you're coming from, so unless you have some more to say about how it could be done differently, then we can just agree to disagree. It's one of the infuriating things when someone just blanket says "that was bad" and offers you no criticism of how to improve it.

I never had a problem with the acting, minus the red headed kid..

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif I never had a problem with the acting, minus the red headed kid..

i don't think it's necessarily his fault...the screenplay has him with the worst lines. hopefully in the next movie (order of the phoenix) they will let him do a little more than make that weird twisted face.

i thought most of the movies were fine...except the goblet of fire. it was awful. michael gambon's dumbledore was atrocious. not entirely his fault, as the director made him do some very un-dumbledore-like things, like yelling at harry. i still love richard harris' dumbledore and think about him when i read the books.

prisoner of azkaban was the best movie by far...having just watched "children of men," i think cuaron rocks...wish he'd do the last movie, too.

i think i'll be in london this summer when "deathly hallows" comes out and my wife and i are very excited about that. love the books, like most of the movies, and even listen to some of the podcasts on HP...big fan here!

 

[YamiTenshi]

I was a huge HP fan for the first 4 books (read them all in 1 month). But then my attention started to fade for the 5 and 6. I didn't even bother buying the books, I just waited until someone else I knew finished then borrowed. I think the hype just killed it for me, too much HP everywhere I go. And I was also not a fan of the movies.

 

[Dimitris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by YamiTenshi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was a huge HP fan for the first 4 books (read them all in 1 month). But then my attention started to fade for the 5 and 6. I didn't even bother buying the books, I just waited until someone else I knew finished then borrowed. I think the hype just killed it for me, too much HP everywhere I go. And I was also not a fan of the movies.

Same here! I have read the first 4 very easily. The 5th started getting a bit off track and the 6th wasn't as great either.

 

[Advil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunuggs /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, do you think that Harry dies first, and then Voldemort? Or the other way around? I mean, he HAS to kill Voldemort. Absolutely no question about that. He must destroy all Horcruxes. Now, the prophecy says something likes "they both cannont live" or something like that. However, it does not say that both can't die. Personally, I think that Voldemort dies (obvious). I don't think (but not positive) that Harry will die. I think that Dumbledore is not dead or, at the very least, is still able to communicate with Harry somehow, through some avenue. I also think that Snape is a good guy (ties in with the Dumbledore being alive). Discuss..........

I think it may be as simple as a crazy duel between the two and harry coming out victorious. As for the Horcruxes, I've heard theories of Harry himself being a Horcrux, that would be crazy. I also think Ron might be the one to bite it. He's always wanted to be a hero, that might bring about his death.

I also believe that Dumbledore isn't dead, or completely gone. Whether it's his portrait or spirit or some crazy thing like that, he'll be able to communicate with Harry.

www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com

read!

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris /img/forum/go_quote.gif Same here! I have read the first 4 very easily. The 5th started getting a bit off track and the 6th wasn't as great either.

The 5th is the worst so far in my opinion, too verbose, unnecesarily long. The best for me are the 1st and 2nd books. The 6th, even though not the best, I think is much better than the 5th. For one thing, it broke the routine of all the previous books: Hogwarts school year progressing under some threatening mysteries that Harry and friends unravel, till Harry eventually has to face Voldemort/his allies, and then somehow manages to survive. That was pretty much standard in all the 1 to 5 books.

The 6th has a different plot scheme, and it exhibits several new oddities. For instance, Voldemort actually doesn´t appear at all. He doesn´t appear at all in the present time of the 6th book, that is. Dumbledore and Harry do observe and study Voldemort in the past, but he never shows up in the present.

The 6th also introduces for the first time in the whole series this rarity of a thing: the horcruxes. By the way, this late introduction and explanation of such a critical thing in the whole story I think diminishes a bit the greatness of the HP series. By the 3rd or 4th book there could have been hints and more explicit references about what a horcrux is, even if not naming it. Rowling kept the basic same routine plot during five books, keeping the understanding of Voldemort's "immortality" in complete darkness untill the 6th out of seven. Quite a bit too much. Just imho of course.

Given that the 6th is a rebound from the lowest point (the 5th,) I hope the 7th and last will be really better than the 6th, improving the overall greatness of the series.

 

[YamiTenshi]

I agree that the horcruxes were introduced far too late in the story. It makes me wonder if JK Rowling actually knows what she is doing. At least in the past books if there was a plot twist coming up she would have left some hints along the way so that when you reread the books you slap your forehead and wonder how you could have missed it. When the horcruxes were introduced it was more of a What did that come from? It also leaves too much that needs to be wrapped up in book 7. How many were there, 3 or 4, that still need to be found and destroyed? And Voldemort himself has to be defeated? Hogwarts will still be recovering from the attack, there are still a few questions left about Harry's family, is Snape really a traitor, etc. Seems a bit too much for one book.