Harry Potter

I just saw the two Harry Potter movies and am completely enthralled! They are simply FANTASTIC!!! Full of adventure, creativity and fun. I HAVE TO get ahold of the books and quick...perhaps a shopping trip is in order.

Just had to let everyone know how great the movies are and encourage everyone to see them!

The books are BETTER. Hard to believe, isn't it? But it's true. Book #4 is kind of dark, though. I'm halfway through #5, so I'll let you know what I think when I'm done.

And aren't the quidditch matches stellar? Oh, my goodness, the special effects -- I think in the Chamber of Secrets. Wow!

Wasn't too impressed with the special effects for quidditch in the Sorcerer's Stone.

I thought both movies were fantastic and I loved the quittish (spelling is wrong :? ) matches. I agree...the effects in Chamber of Secrets were better...but the Sources Stone was still great!

I bought the first book last night and am hoping to get some reading in today. I'll let you know what I think...but I'm sure it's going to be GREAT!

My first ballroom teacher turned me on to those books. He and I used to have endless conversations about those and the Lord of the Rings books and films. He and I both had a thing for Orlando Bloom. What a hottie! And what fun!

I used to think Harry Potter books were only for kids. Wrong! Something like 25 - 30% of the readers are adults. You should have seen the opening day crowd at the Chamber of Secrets movie. Truly scary-loking grownups. In costume, no less. And the movie premiered during the schoolday. There were no kids there. :shock:

I own both and I favor chamber of secrets. If you like Harry Potter I suggest seeing The Lord of the Rings also

Yes. The two movies are definitely connected in my mind. Although Lord of the Rings is more unrelentingly intense. I love them both.

Wonder what the Harry Potter people are going to do about Dumbledore, now that Richard Harris is gone? Anybody know?

Hmm. :?:

Why, oh why, do I count on you forums people to supply me with info, when google is right at hand? :lol:

A British character actor names Michael Gambon, age 62, is replacing Richard Harris, who died from cancer earlier this year at age 74. The Prisoner of Azkaban has already started filming.


Guys, guys, (or ladies, ladies ...) true movie enthusiasts want to know... bad enough to at least google. :cry: :lol:

Thanks for all the GREAT info! I've begun reading Harry Potter...the first one...during my lunch break at work and I am completely hooked. I can't wait to finish it and get to the next ones...fantastic!!!

I'll also have to check out the LOTR book...I've seen the movie and wasn't as excited about it, but I KNOW you gals wouldn't lead me wrong.

THANKS!!!

If the Lord of the Rings Movies didn't thirill you, don't try the books. The books are WAY long. I mean WAY long. 1000 pages. And I kid you not, the climax of the entire trilogy happens within ONE stinkin' PARAGRAPH. Inside a thousand-page book, one paragraph. Just check out the Return of the King movie when it comes out (December 17? I think) Don't spend your time on the books.

And while we're talking about LOTR, I have to say for the record that The Two Towers, the second movie, was a big disappointment for me. What was the deal with making Gimli into a comic relief figure? SO not representative of the books. And where did all the dang women come from? Not that I don't like strong female figures in books and movies. I do. But the LOTR books had very few, if any, scenes, with women in them. So why were women figured so prominently in the movies?

The books were written half a century ago. Why do they have to be politically corrected? They stand on their own, women or no women. Spoken from the view of a VERY strong and independent woman, for what it's worth.

Every production speaks of the period in which it was produced-- even more than even the period it represents or was written. It's one of things you really cannot get away from. Compare the films of Romeo & Juliet produced in the 30's, the 70's (or was it 60's?), and the 90's. Very interesting indeed. Supposedly all from the same script yet each tells a very different story! (especially the first two)

It's been a while since I've seen LOTR... where there really that many women added? Does it effect story? Let's also not forget the fact that a large percent of our population rather likes to look at women :wink:

Yup , Swing Kitten. You're absolutely right. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to divorce a movie from the period in which it was produced. I won't speak on the Romeo & Juliet example, because, of the three versions you mention, I only saw one.

So let's take Hamlet for example. The Sir Laurence Olivier version (40s?), the Richard Burton version (60's) the Mel Gibson version (80s?) and the Kenneth Branagh version (90s). All the same story, but extremely different interpretations. Some of the differences clearly attributable to the time period in which the film maker lived. Some likely due to the film maker's personal interpretation of the story. Yet, in each of these cases, the story was the same. Darn it, even the dialogue was exactly the same. But the movies looked and felt very different. In that sense, you are absolutely right.

Then there are examples of movies where, because of technological advances, a story becomes impossible to tell in a new time period without some major changes. (Think Gaslight and Midnight Lace.)

Then you have movies where a film maker unsuccessfully tries to copy another film maker's vision (original Psycho versus early-90's version)

IMHO, what happened with LOTR is a little different. In Lord of the Rings, no women were actually added. Women who had fairly insignificant roles in the book were given pivotal roles in the movie, for no apparent reason. What bothers me about it is that, in The Two Towers, Tolkien has one of the females lament being left out of the action. Yet he chooses to leave her out. (Tolkien couldn't escape his time period, either. The women's movement was a few mere years away when he wrote these books. ) I'm taking pains here not to spill the beans on anything that happens in book three, so bear with me. :?

Incidentally, my view is neither unique nor particularly profound. There was a big controversy over this when the first movie came out. The film makers and publicists for the movie were all over the press, explaining why they chose to expand the roles of women so dramatically. I'm just telling you which side of the controversy I stand on.

Ok, I was completely unaware of such a controversy... which sorta makes sense since I'm on the scabbing edge of popular culture! :wink: I live under a very large rock entitiled "school" so I've stopped being suprised when I discover I had missed something that everyone else takes as common knowledge. :shrug:

It's only common knowledge to Lord of the Rings geeks, like moi! :lol:

See, but even that I wouldn't know! :wink:

pygmalion said:

If the Lord of the Rings Movies didn't thirill you, don't try the books. The books are WAY long. I mean WAY long. 1000 pages. And I kid you not, the climax of the entire trilogy happens within ONE stinkin' PARAGRAPH. Inside a thousand-page book, one paragraph. Just check out the Return of the King movie when it comes out (December 17? I think) Don't spend your time on the books.

Click to expand...

Good to know...thanks for the heads up. I think my fiance has the book so I'll just take a peek in his, after I finish the five HP books of course. Which, BTW, I am completely engrossed in. I'm still in the very beginning of the first book. I read it every day in our little lunch room at work and I am entirely transferred to Hogwarts and the world of magic. It's a nice break from reality.

pygmalion said:

And while we're talking about LOTR, I have to say for the record that The Two Towers, the second movie, was a big disappointment for me.

Click to expand...

Hmm...I actually enjoyed the second one a LOT more than the first. After the first I was only partially excited to see the second. Once I watched the second, I couldn't wait for the third one to be out. We'll have to see it in the theater!!!

pygmalion said:

And where did all the dang women come from? Not that I don't like strong female figures in books and movies. I do. But the LOTR books had very few, if any, scenes, with women in them. So why were women figured so prominently in the movies?

Click to expand...

From a marketing standpoint, it makes sense to add women and give them strong roles. It opens the movie up to an entirely new marketing group, rather than just a stereotypical male action flick. By adding strong women, it also becomes a powerful, motivating chick flick.