NationStates Jolt Archive

Not so much spoilers as a warning.

According to the Wikipedia article, the guy put in charge of Goblet of Fire is also taking artistic liberties, even to the point that a semi-important story element is changed.

First off, Ludo Bagman is cut. How? Hell if I know. A quarter of the story involves him going around and being annoying. Didn't half the lines about the tournament come from Bagman? Also, it seems like the WEasley clan has been cut from the film. Apparently the director hates the Weasleys and only wanted as many as he had to put in it for it to be Harry Potter 4th year. Same goes for teh Dursleys, which also doesn't make sense because the Dursleys are always a major part of the story seeing as Harry starts there and ends there in every damn book.

Now what story element is changed? There are no house elves, no Winky and especially no Dobby. What the hell? No Dobby? Yes. That means that Harry learns information about the second trial not from Dobby but from Neville. Yes, the pudgy little moron replaces the ingenious Harry-loving house elf. And come to think of it, how the fuck can they do this without Winky? That means they obviously cut out the entire logical explanation for how the mark appeared in the sky, and they obviously cut out who gets blamed for it. If there is no Winky, there is no logical person to catch blame.

This doesn't even include minor changes that only an idiot could fuck up. Like how in the book everyone is gushing over Hermione's blue dress. In the movie it is pink. Etc.

It looks like the new guy also has never picked up a Harry Potter book in his life.

Of course, this is just the Wikipedia article and some may be incorrect, but why not start a thread now so no one is angry enough to throw stuff at the screen when they go to watch it just in case any of it is right.

The books're okay, the movies okay..They don't really impress me. However, if you're going to do a movie based on a book, at least say true to the damned book.

Of course, this is just the Wikipedia article and most of it probably is incorrect
There, I fixed it for you.
Wikipedia, as it amounts to Amateur Night at the Encyclopedia factory, isn't a good source of information.

I'm seeing it and I won't mind. Years since I read the book, and I don't see the films as a replacement for them. Films != books. I'll tolerate changes if they make the film better.

I still going to watch it. Dont the death-eaters look a bit like the klan?

I'm seeing it and I won't mind. Years since I read the book, and I don't see the films as a replacement for them. Films != books. I'll tolerate changes if they make the film better.
I highly doubt that they'll be able to improve upon the best book in the series.

Hmm. Perhaps Bush and Blair will find this new issue in their boxes before very long:

Title: Harry Potter Backlash

Validity: Valid for nations who chose not to ban the Harry Potter books

Description: A mob of youth rioters, enraged by liberal movie depictions of their beloved Harry Potter book series, are taking to the streets. They are burning cinemas, killing ushers at random, and shouting Latin-sounding spell phrases in a national wave of dissatisfaction and pre-teen angst. Officials are concerned that Star Wars purists may join the fray, after which the movie industry may be physically dismantled by a New Wizard-Jedi Coalition.

...or maybe not. I know that one of the appeals of the Harry Potters movies has been that they stay true to canon, thus far.

One question, though. Why do we feel the need to "translate" Harry Potter here in the United States?

There is no such thing as a Sorcerer's Stone. And I KNOW those Hogwarts kids weren't talking about soccer in that passage I read the other day.

I highly doubt that they'll be able to improve upon the best book in the series.

They're never able to improve on the books, period, but that isn't the point, either. I do agree that the book is the best in the series, though.

I highly doubt that they'll be able to improve upon the best book in the series.
I don't know, the best book in the Harry Potter series is kind of an oxymoron to me....

I'm seeing it and I won't mind. Years since I read the book, and I don't see the films as a replacement for them. Films != books. I'll tolerate changes if they make the film better.

Same here. We have tickets to the opening night, its a ritual now that my parents come down to see it with their grandchildren when these films open.

My oldest son's friend won tickets to a sneak preview the night before and invited my son, who cannot wait.

One question, though. Why do we feel the need to "translate" Harry Potter here in the United States?

There is no such thing as a Sorcerer's Stone. And I KNOW those Hogwarts kids weren't talking about soccer in that passage I read the other day.
Because that is what editors do? They alter things to make them marketable.
It is primarily a kids/early teen series, and so the editors decided that kids in the US would be less willing to read The philosopher's stone, but changing it to Sorcerer's stone would get the attention of the little bastards.
Basically, blame the youth of the US, it is all their fault.

I'm just waiting for Voldemort to kill Cho Chang, as to piss Harry off.

I still going to watch it. Dont the death-eaters look a bit like the klan?
From what I could tell from the .1 second appearance in the trailer from a distance of 100 meters and through a crowd of people - sorta.

I'm just waiting for Voldemort to kill Cho Chang, as to piss Harry off.Dude, Cho and Harry are so over.

Harry Potter just isn't interesting.

I'd rather watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy over and over again.

Dude, Cho and Harry are so over.

Somebody didn't get the owl...

Somebody didn't get the owl...

*Hands Fass a medal*

Somebody didn't get the owl...Wait a sec, am I missing something?
*starts madly re-reading all the books*

...or maybe not. I know that one of the appeals of the Harry Potters movies has been that they stay true to canon, thus far.


Hah!

They've totally cut out some of the best parts of the books, and added in scenes of utter drivel.

Though I suppose since they've kept point A and point B the same, even if they mess about with how they get from A to B it's still sticking to canon somewhat.

...Bah, whatever. None of the movies have been particularly good anyway, especially the second one, it almost would have been better if they had strayed further from canon if it meant the movies would have turned out better.

I quite liked the third movie. The first two were a waste of time.

though if I have to see that annoying expression plastered on Ron's face for another whole two hours, I might have to send him some duct tape with instructions.

Harry Potter just isn't interesting.

I'd rather watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy over and over again.I'd rather read it

I'd rather read it
Yes, that's nice, but if I start that, I'll pull out the Silmarillion, and the supplemental books, and then I'll call my friends and pull out the Hackmaster role-playing manual...

I'd rather read it
I already did, a number of times. I liked that book. (Or books if you're weird and like to get it separately instead of in one huge fat volume.;))

LOL, if that's true, the entire IMDb site will clog up when several million HP nerds/fanboys/girls post about it. Or at least the HP movie forums and the Daniel Radcliffe forum. Come to think about it, it's actually pretty good...

Anyway, I seriously don't believe that article. Although I know the creators of the former HP movies has been artistic to say the least, the changes the OP came up with are just to outlandish.

But who cares... I wouldn't watch it anyway. Golden Compass pwns HP.

I think the criticism of the new HP movie is unfair. We knew things would be gone from it the moment they said they were cutting it down from a two movie release to a one movie release. You cant fit everything in that book into one movie. When I heard this, the first thing I thought was that Hermoine's house elf liberation front would be gone, since it was the most useless part of the book. I also figured the Quidditch world cup would be gone, since that would cut a good deal of time from the movie and the idea that the sign was displayed there couldve been conveyed in under a minute by having an owl drop a copy of the daily prophet with a cover page reffering to that and then having the kids read it in amazement. I was wrong about that, they somehow managed to fit the Quidditch world cup in there afterall. The Weasleys and Dursleys were obviously ripe for the cutting room floor as well.

For the record, the current director intended to turn Goblet of Fire into two movies that would be released a few months apart. He was convinced by the previous director that he could cut it down to one big movie. So, saying he hates the Weasleys or anything like that is ignorant. He intended to include everything but was convinced that having one tight movie would be better than having two movies that included everything.

Movies are an entirely different animal from books. You shouldnt be upset when producers take liberties with the plot of the book they are adapting. A movie version of a book is just that, an adaptation, not a copy. Many things work in a book and not on screen. A book can be any length, a movie has time constraints. A book can outright tell you what a character feels, a movie has to come up with a way to show you. A book can create a fantastical realm with no limitations, a movie has budget and technology limitations. There are many differences that make movies completely different from books. They should not be judged by comparison, but as their own unique works.

Prisoner of Azkaban worked. It was a good movie. Yet, it left out things that were tremendously important. For example, the fact that Harry's father was an arrogant bully is gone from the movie. So is the identity of the Marauders who created the map. This isnt missed at all if you dont know it's there.

I also figured the Quidditch world cup would be gone, since that would cut a good deal of time from the movie and the idea that the sign was displayed there couldve been conveyed in under a minute by having an owl drop a copy of the daily prophet with a cover page reffering to that and then having the kids read it in amazement.
Good way to entirely destroy the story line. You would have people egging your house if you made that change. That is a major story element where as the Hosue Elf Liberatino shit was a waste of time even in the book.


He was convinced by the previous director that he could cut it down to one big movie.
Then he is an idiot. The previous director admitted to never having even picked up a Harry Potter book before being hired to direct.

A book can create a fantastical realm with no limitations, a movie has budget and technology limitations.
For Harry Potter, the former is irrelevant, and this is not the 1970s. There are no technology limitations. It is called CGI and this movie will be employing it with gusto. Also, I will give you ten dollars if you can give and explain a valid reason for making Hermione's descriptively blue dress a pink one.


Prisoner of Azkaban worked. It was a good movie. Yet, it left out things that were tremendously important.
Because it was directed by a moron who never should have made it past the screening process.

Good way to entirely destroy the story line. You would have people egging your house if you made that change. That is a major story element where as the Hosue Elf Liberatino shit was a waste of time even in the book.

Things needed to be cut. This was an obvious place to start. It takes up a great deal of time to put across a small amount of information. The information could have been conveyed in a far shorter amount of time and made cuts in other areas unnecessary. Heck, the movie couldve began with news reports about the happenings and gotten that whole thing out of the way in maybe 2 minutes. The only reason I wouldnt go that route is because as far as I know, Rowling has never written a TV into the wizarding world, so they may not even have them.


For Harry Potter, the former is irrelevant, and this is not the 1970s. There are no technology limitations. It is called CGI and this movie will be employing it with gusto.

Money is always relevant. No one ever has a blank check to make a movie. You have a set amount of money, and when its gone, its gone. You can try begging for more, and with a movie as important as Goblet of Fire, they may give it to you but dont expect to ever be hired by that studio again since you cant be trusted with a budget.

Also, I will give you ten dollars if you can give and explain a valid reason for making Hermione's descriptively blue dress a pink one.


You are arguing about the color of a dress?? Geeze, get a life. This is an irrelevant detail. The important part is that it is a beautiful dress. If the most beautiful dress they found was pink and not blue, that's ok because the color is irrelevant.


Because it was directed by a moron who never should have made it past the screening process.

Yet it was a very successful and well liked movie. Honestly, I didnt like it the first time I saw it because, like you, I was watching it expecting to see the book on screen (I shouldnt've). But I went to watch it again when it played on the imax. That second time I truly enjoyed the movie. I realized why everyone I know who had not read the books loved that movie the best. It was a superb, highly entertaining movie. If you had not read the books, you would probably view it as the best one.

Good way to entirely destroy the story line. You would have people egging your house if you made that change. That is a major story element where as the Hosue Elf Liberatinon shit was a waste of time even in the book.


Don't you dare make fun of SPEW, I loved that part!

Some of us House Elves are working hard so someday we may gain pay and freedom. Don't take a movie about our work away from us!

According to the Wikipedia article, the guy put in charge of Goblet of Fire is also taking artistic liberties, even to the point that a semi-important story element is changed.
Don't forget that JKR has iron-clad artistic control. If something is cut, it's cut with her approval.

...or maybe not. I know that one of the appeals of the Harry Potters movies has been that they stay true to canon, thus far.

One question, though. Why do we feel the need to "translate" Harry Potter here in the United States?

There is no such thing as a Sorcerer's Stone. And I KNOW those Hogwarts kids weren't talking about soccer in that passage I read the other day.

And yet they left in words like "fug", which was actually a misprint in the last book, but led me to find out that "fug" actually is a word in England, so that when I saw it in Neil Gaiman's latest novel, I knew it was intentional...

Prisoner of Azkaban worked. It was a good movie. Yet, it left out things that were tremendously important. For example, the fact that Harry's father was an arrogant bully is gone from the movie.

That could have something to do with the fact that Harry doesn't find that out until later in the series, when he sees Snape's memory. It happened in the next to last book, I believe.

So is the identity of the Marauders who created the map.

Now *that*, I think they should have included. It would have taken two seconds!

Prisoner of Azkaban worked. It was a good movie. Yet, it left out things that were tremendously important. For example, the fact that Harry's father was an arrogant bully is gone from the movie. So is the identity of the Marauders who created the map. This isnt missed at all if you dont know it's there.

No, it didn't.

If Harry can't do magic outside school, why was he castig spells?

Why was Harrys' Patronus a blob, then suddenly take shape? And why was that shape a stag?

Who made the Map? And why did Lupin know it was a map?

All important, all left out.

Okay, now, to illustrate the extreme validity of the emotion behind the following statement, I would like you all to know that although I have no problem with swearing and do not find any swearwords offensive (except the terms 'fag', 'faggot' and 'dyke' when used in an insulting and purposely offensive manner and not out of play), swearwords are simply not a part of my everyday vocabulary (unlike other multi-syllable words with which my speech is unnecessarily peppered), and it is very rare that I, Jennislore, ever utter a curse:

WHAT THE HOLY FUCKING HELL!!!! What is fucking WRONG with them?? The Harry Potter books are a work of art, and these ridiculous patronizing maniacs are destroying them completely. They are taking down with painful accuracy the incredible masterpiece, and completely annihilating one of the extremely good parts about the entire thing as a whole: IT GOT KIDS TO READ.

These movies are total crap! Do you know HOW far the vast fandom has been polluted by TV-zombies who think, Oh, I saw these little kids' movies and now I'm, like, a huge, like, fan of Harry Potter, because like Draco is soooo hot! I am a true, serious fan, and I co-run a semi-large fanfiction site. Do you know how many of these flimsy ditzes turn up at my site, expecting to be able to do nothing but swoon over the 'hot actors'? And by the way, Hermione is not supposed to a) be that good-looking (HAIR!!...I shall say no more) or b) care that much about her appearance (come on, a pink sweater? and "Is that really what my hair looks like from the back??" Who is this character and what has she done with Hermione?). Harry Potter isn't ABOUT hot actors. And while I'm here, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint really need haircuts, the grown-out thing is REALLY not flattering.

If you're going to be a Harry Potter fan, READ ALL THE BOOKS before even THINKING about the movies. The movies are trash. They're a pitiful echo of Harry Potter. The books may be declining in quality as they go on, but they're huge, they're interesting, and they're a good read for kids. That was one of the GOOD bits. Kids started reading more! Now that we have these ridiculous spoofs available, they figure, whatever I could have read, the TV can give me faster. The plot, the actual STORY, no longer has any part. When the little ™ Warner Bros. began appearing next to all the elements of HP, that was my first sign of the deterioration of the whole.

...




After all this, you may be surprised to hear I'm going to see it on the opening night. :( Sad but true ;) :p I am a true fan, I won't let myself down.

If it's still unclear, let me put it this way...

On the popular quiz "How obsessed with Harry Potter are you?" (fuuko.com/hpquiz), on which, by the way, I scored 122%, question 46 is:
46. Did the thought of a movie terrify you because you were certain they're going to mutilate the book?
...(I, of course, checked yes)...
47. Did you going to see it on opening night anyway?

...and yes again. :p



I am such a weirdo.


**EDIT** BTW, I would like to point that, on top of everything, Harry's principal identifying feature past his scar is his, *ahem*, BOTTLE-GREEN eyes. Eye colour is not, contrary to popular belief, unbelievably difficult to fake. So what's with the grey?

Movies are rarely as good as the book (I can think of only one exception). They are an entirely different art form, however, and thus shouldn't really be compared to the books. They are adaptations, not copies. Even a completely different ending is acceptable and has happened before (most notably in adaptation for Stephen King books like "The Shining" and "Stand By Me").

The Harry Potter books are a work of art, and these ridiculous patronizing maniacs are destroying them completely

The Mona Lisa is a work of art.

The basilica of St. Peter is a work of art.

Bach's Piano Concerto in F minor is a work of art.

Dostevsky's Crime and Punishment is a work of art.

Harry Potter is essentially JRR Tolkien but with all the depth removed and in its place is stuffed an amusing British yarn about boarding school life.

Nah, there are definitely parallels between HP and LOTR, but I'd disagree that Harry Potter is Tolkien minus brilliance. Though I can definitely see that point of view. I just disagree. It is its own thing, in itself. Eragon, on the other hand...don't even get me started! :rolleyes:

And by the way, I come across strongly as a highly opinionated and headstrong, uncompromising individual solely because of my ludicrously extensive range of terminology. I'm just weird that way.

b) care that much about her appearance (come on, a pink sweater? and "Is that really what my hair looks like from the back??" Who is this character and what has she done with Hermione?).

Actually, the books demonstrate that Hermione does care about her looks (this is pretty evident in The Goblet of Fire), she simply can't get her hair manageable without taking waaay too much time to do it.

If Harry can't do magic outside school, why was he castig spells?

Wasn't this covered in the movie?

Why was Harrys' Patronus a blob, then suddenly take shape? And why was that shape a stag?

We dont need to know.

Who made the Map? And why did Lupin know it was a map?

Again, we dont need to know who made the map. We dont know who made the invisibility cloak do we? Neither do we know how that hand Draco uses came to be or who made the room of requirement or the mirror of erised or a number of other things. Lupin couldve known because hes used such maps before.

All important, all left out.

If it were important, Rowling would not have allowed it to be removed. She has the final word.

I dont like that they removed these things either. But the movie did work. People loved it. Roger Ebert gave it 3 and a half stars out of 4. Yahoo users give it a B+, and the critic rating on yahoo gives it a B+. IMDB users give it a 7.8 out of 10. Critics wrote positive reviews of it, even calling it "brilliant". Then there's personal experience, ask all of your friends who have seen it what they think and you'll probably find that, like most people, if they did not read the books they enjoyed the movie and if they did read the books whether they enjoyed it or not depends on their ability to view it as an independent work and not as an extension of the books. The consensus seems to be that it did work.

Harry Potter is essentially JRR Tolkien but with all the depth removed and in its place is stuffed an amusing British yarn about boarding school life.
This (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=sauron&word2=voldemort) proves conclusively that Sauron is greater than Voldemort! :D

Personally I don't give two shits about HP, okay so the books are good books, but there no better than say The Web books. There aimed at a audience of 7-9 years olds and for some reason they've taken off. They arn't great books, they ahve no underlying and thus they are easy to translate into film-it's a lot easy to translate somthing thats got no meaning and is just a good story.

If they've messed with the plot who cares, it dosn't change the fatc it's a good story, it's not like the books have any underlying concept like His Dark Materials.

The movies are okay movies, they arn't a LOTR but then there no attack of the Killer *Inseart animal here*. So anyway go read His Dark Materials and get a life.

The success of the movies is basically rooted in the enormous fame of Harry Potter as a whole. The movies themselves are badly-made and just, in general, bad movies. I mean, ROTK won all 11 awards, not because it was a good movie but because it was, well, Lord of the Rings! Ditto HP.

I would complain childishly, there IS underlying meaning in HP...:(

Once more, I would like to reiterate that I appear to be extensively heedless and pugnacious wholly due to my weightily oversized use of vocabulary. I apologize verys sincerely. It's what comes of entertaining sufficient durations of leisure time to indulge in reading the actual dictionary.

Personally I don't give two shits about HP, okay so the books are good books, but there no better than say The Web books. There aimed at a audience of 7-9 years olds and for some reason they've taken off. They arn't great books, they ahve no underlying and thus they are easy to translate into film-it's a lot easy to translate somthing thats got no meaning and is just a good story.

Actually the books grew up with the readers: The sixth book was for 16/17 year olds. Lots of death talk and other stuff not appropriate for 7 year olds. What have you been reading!?

The reason they take off is it is a good story, good under lying meaning, and great plot development.

Don't take about a book series you don't read much of. It makes you sound ignorant. (which you be literally if you spoke about something you don't read).

If they've messed with the plot who cares, it dosn't change the fatc it's a good story, it's not like the books have any underlying concept like His Dark Materials.

The movies are okay movies, they arn't a LOTR but then there no attack of the Killer *Inseart animal here*. So anyway go read His Dark Materials and get a life.
Dark materials have too much stuff that I don't like in a character. Lyra smokes, drinks, and other stuff that aren't what i'd like in a main character at a pre-teen age.

Harry is actually more like able than Lyra if you compare personalities.

Harry is more like able than Lyra

Wholeheartedly agreed upon.

And come on...they're 12. They don't FALL in LOVE forever and for always when they're TWELVE. At least, they shouldn't. The series itself is OK, but the characters are rather badly writ. Lyra isn't really all that smart, either, though I did like the bit where they went to the universe where instead of daemons you had your Death. I want a Death!!

I'd rather watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy over and over again.
I'd prefer garotting Peter Jackson for making his hackneyed version of LOTR into the indispensible pop commodity that people turn to, rather than picking up a G.D. book every once in a while.

Things needed to be cut. This was an obvious place to start. It takes up a great deal of time to put across a small amount of information. The information could have been conveyed in a far shorter amount of time and made cuts in other areas unnecessary. Heck, the movie couldve began with news reports about the happenings and gotten that whole thing out of the way in maybe 2 minutes. The only reason I wouldnt go that route is because as far as I know, Rowling has never written a TV into the wizarding world, so they may not even have them.
Removing that event entirely distorts the story. Though if Winky and Ludo Bagman are actually gone, the event does lose its point because the entire point was to introduce you to Bagman, Winky, Krum, and the new coming of Voldermont.


You are arguing about the color of a dress?? Geeze, get a life.
I am making a point, grow up.

If the most beautiful dress they found was pink and not blue, that's ok because the color is irrelevant.
You realize near 100% of clothing for movies is custom made? They don't go looking in closets for this shit, especially for fantasy movies.

If you feel that the Dursleys, the Weasleys, Bagman and Winky are worth omitting, then the World Cup is pretty much worth omitting. And if the World Cup is worth omitting, the Death Eater attack is worth omitting. And if the Death Eater attack is worth omitting, then Barty Crouch Jr is worth omitting. And if Barty Crouch Jr is worth omitting, Barty Crouch Sr and Mad-Eye Moody are worth omitting. And if both Crouches are worth omitting, then Harry's entrance into the Tournament is worth omitting. And if Harry's entrance into the Tournament is worth omitting, not only are the Tournament Tasks are worth omitting, the whole plotline of Voldemort's return is worth omitting.

And if you get rid of all of that, you're left with Cho Chang, a whole bunch of Ron implying he likes Hermione, lots of easily-miscontrued stuff with Harry and Hermione, Hermione snogging Viktor Krum, a whole lot of Sirius, the Yule Ball, and Rita Skeeter to tell the world about it. Which is what I predict the movie will end up as.

And if you get rid of all of that, you're left with Cho Chang, a whole bunch of Ron implying he likes Hermione, lots of easily-miscontrued stuff with Harry and Hermione, Hermione snogging Viktor Krum, a whole lot of Sirius, the Yule Ball, and Rita Skeeter to tell the world about it. Which is what I predict the movie will end up as.
A whole lot of Sirius? Wrong book.

No, Sirius is in Book 4, too, and considering everything else there's a whole lot of Sirius compared to what you really need. (Of course, I haven o problem with Sirius, but he wasn't big in Book 4 canon.)

Removing that event entirely distorts the story. Though if Winky and Ludo Bagman are actually gone, the event does lose its point because the entire point was to introduce you to Bagman, Winky, Krum, and the new coming of Voldermont.

Of course it changes the story, but this isnt the book in pictures, this is the movie and its not supposed to be identical. It isnt important for Victor Krum to be a Quidditch player, Bagman is just a red herring, and the subplot of who put the sign up couldve been eliminated which would eliminate the need for Winky being present.


I am making a point, grow up.

Then you failed. What was the point? If the book says it is blue it must be blue? Gimme a break, what difference does the color make?


You realize near 100% of clothing for movies is custom made? They don't go looking in closets for this shit, especially for fantasy movies.

Actually, that is incorrect. Now you have delved into a topic that I have first hand knowledge of. Clothing for movies is not always custom made. Movies have a trailer called "wardrobe" where they have all manner of clothing and costumes. Much of the clothing in the wardrobe trailer is store-bought property of the studio that is used in movie after movie. All identifying marks are removed from the clothing so that jeans no longer say Gucci for example. Period pieces or other movies requiring specialized costumes (Harry Potter would certainly fall into this category) make heavy use of custom designed clothing. But it is grossly inaccurate to claim that nearly 100% of clothing for movies is custom made.

Of course it changes the story, but this isnt the book in pictures
But it is the same story.

It isnt important for Victor Krum to be a Quidditch player,
Yes, it is. And it is important for Fleur Delacour to be part Veela. It is a plot element that has to do with the inherent Harry Potter storyline.

which would eliminate the need for Winky being present.
Winky and Bagman are totally unrelated.

Then you failed. What was the point? If the book says it is blue it must be blue? Gimme a break, what difference does the color make?
You miss the point. And judging by the pervious paragraph, you have been watching the Starship Troopers move too many times.

Ill ignore everything else cus I think both sides have been adequately presented at this point. But I have to ask the following because its perplexing:

1. What in the world does Starship Troopers have to do with this discussiom?

Ill ignore everything else cus I think both sides have been adequately presented at this point. But I have to ask cus its perplexing. What in the world does Starship Troopers have to do with this discussiom?
Starship Troopers has to be the worst book to movie adaptation ever made.

Starship Troopers has to be the worst book to movie adaptation ever made.

OK. So, you somehow felt that introducing another movie into the discussion would somehow help your case? I can introduce some examples of movies on the opposite end. Here are some great movies that diverge greatly from the book they are based on but are still wonderful movies in their own right:

1. Clockwork Orange
2. The Shining
3. Dune
4. Blade Runner
5. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
6. The Firm

You missed the point of the reference, unsurprisingly. But no, Starship Troopers has almsot nothing to do with the book.

OK. So, you somehow felt that introducing another movie into the discussion would somehow help your case? I can introduce some examples of movies on the opposite end. Here are some great movies that diverge greatly from the book they are based on but are still wonderful movies in their own right:

1. Clockwork Orange
2. The Shining
3. Dune
4. Blade Runner
5. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
6. The Firm
Yes, but there are many good books to movie adaptations like Princess Bride, etc.
Really Princess Bride is a classic. :D Just thought I'd say that.

Starship troopers wasn't like the book? Well never read that one so don't know what I missed. I perfered the cartoon of it. Was that based on the book?

Yes, but there are many good books to movie adaptations like Princess Bride, etc.
Really Princess Bride is a classic. :D Just thought I'd say that.

Starship troopers wasn't like the book? Well never read that one so don't know what I missed. I perfered the cartoon of it. Was that based on the book?
Never heard of a cartoon, but read the book - it is excellent.

Never heard of a cartoon, but read the book - it is excellent.

It was cool. In season 2, they introduced a robot dude.

Basically it had a squardron of people: soldiers, medic, specialisist, etc.

It was UPN I think a few years back. I forget what day. But it was adult Swim material not kiddy stuff. Definately good.

JK's opinion from her FAQ page:


How did you feel about the POA filmmakers leaving the Marauder’s Map’s background out of the story? (A Mugglenet/Lexicon question)

I was fine with it. It is simply impossible to incorporate every one of my storylines into a film that has to be kept under four hours long. Obviously films have restrictions novels do not have, constraints of time and budget; I can create dazzling effects relying on nothing but the interaction of my own and my readers’ imaginations – hence my preference for the page over the screen.


From JK's site - http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=94


Even so, I still hope they don't cut too much out of the next movie. The books are separate from the movies, and should always be seen as such, but the reason the movies are good is still that they are based on JK's ideas, so the less they diverge from those ideas the better in my opinion.

Actually the books grew up with the readers: The sixth book was for 16/17 year olds. Lots of death talk and other stuff not appropriate for 7 year olds. What have you been reading!?


You know, strangly enough kids do talk about death. If your living in a plastic bubble where all kids just think about roses and stuff you should get out more.

The reason they take off is it is a good story, good under lying meaning, and great plot development.

I agree about the good story and the plot development, but they don't have a udnerlying meaning. i never said they where bad books, they just arn't great.


Dark materials have too much stuff that I don't like in a character. Lyra smokes, drinks, and other stuff that aren't what i'd like in a main character at a pre-teen age.

Harry is actually more like able than Lyra if you compare personalities.
I know kids as young as 11 who smoke, I had my first drink at 10, I got drunk first at 13. And it isn't about which caracter you like, it's about which child is a better formed caracter and in my view Lyra is.

And come on...they're 12. They don't FALL in LOVE forever and for always when they're TWELVE. At least, they shouldn't.
why not? Just because your twelve dosn't mean you can't love (And by the books end will is 15/14 and Lyras 14/13.)

The series itself is OK, but the characters are rather badly writ. Lyra isn't really all that smart, either, though I did like the bit where they went to the universe where instead of daemons you had your Death. I want a Death!!
Lyra dosn't have to smart, shes a normal schoolgirl not a supergenius. As for that bit, that was about the three parts of the soul and how people deny that there going to die. Far deeper than HP.

Starship troopers wasn't like the book? Well never read that one so don't know what I missed. I perfered the cartoon of it. Was that based on the book?

They couldn't have messed up Starship Troopers any more if they had put Fass in a spandex purple suit and made him the lord of all aliens.

The book is excellent, the movie is trash.

They couldn't have messed up Starship Troopers any more if they had put Fass in a spandex purple suit and made him the lord of all aliens.

The book is excellent, the movie is trash.
thatd have inproved it.

put Fass in a spandex purple suit and made him the lord of all aliens.

You sure are obsessed with me in spandex.

You sure are obsessed with me in spandex.
Arn't we all?

I already did, a number of times. I liked that book. (Or books if you're weird and like to get it separately instead of in one huge fat volume.;))

I'm wierd :) if its all in one volume I get confused as to where the next book starts.

I'm wierd :) if its all in one volume I get confused as to where the next book starts.
Huh, hows that?

Not so much spoilers as a warning.

According to the Wikipedia article, the guy put in charge of Goblet of Fire is also taking artistic liberties, even to the point that a semi-important story element is changed.

First off, Ludo Bagman is cut. How? Hell if I know. A quarter of the story involves him going around and being annoying. Didn't half the lines about the tournament come from Bagman? Also, it seems like the WEasley clan has been cut from the film. Apparently the director hates the Weasleys and only wanted as many as he had to put in it for it to be Harry Potter 4th year. Same goes for teh Dursleys, which also doesn't make sense because the Dursleys are always a major part of the story seeing as Harry starts there and ends there in every damn book.

Now what story element is changed? There are no house elves, no Winky and especially no Dobby. What the hell? No Dobby? Yes. That means that Harry learns information about the second trial not from Dobby but from Neville. Yes, the pudgy little moron replaces the ingenious Harry-loving house elf. And come to think of it, how the fuck can they do this without Winky? That means they obviously cut out the entire logical explanation for how the mark appeared in the sky, and they obviously cut out who gets blamed for it. If there is no Winky, there is no logical person to catch blame.

This doesn't even include minor changes that only an idiot could fuck up. Like how in the book everyone is gushing over Hermione's blue dress. In the movie it is pink. Etc.

It looks like the new guy also has never picked up a Harry Potter book in his life.

Of course, this is just the Wikipedia article and some may be incorrect, but why not start a thread now so no one is angry enough to throw stuff at the screen when they go to watch it just in case any of it is right.

Yeah I was a little annoted at Hermione's dress when I saw the piccys but I thought, meh, it's just a colour... but DOBBY!!! Dobby's the cooledt, you can't just cut him...:(

What movie are they up to now #4???

Yeah I was a little annoted at Hermione's dress when I saw the piccys but I thought, meh, it's just a colour... but DOBBY!!! Dobby's the cooledt, you can't just cut him...:(
Agreed, Dobby and Winky are house elves. Nosas like Hose Elves; Nosas is a House elf.

Only dirty mudbloods would cut them like Voldemort!

Huh, hows that?

well I read so fast I skip over the page were the next books title is.

I have a better idea. Instead of watching Harry Pothead, go watch JARHEAD!!! OOORAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have a better idea. Instead of watching Harry Pothead, go watch JARHEAD!!! OOORAH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or, let us go watch something we find entertaining instead.

I have a better idea. Instead of watching Harry Pothead, go watch JARHEAD!!! OOORAH!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was a pretty shity movie. Apparently, half of it was ripped off Full Metal Jacket (which I haven't seen, but still). Jake Gylenhaal is rather fetching, but other than that, the movie was an overdone bore.

Agreed, Dobby and Winky are house elves. Nosas like Hose Elves; Nosas is a House elf.

Only dirty mudbloods would cut them like Voldemort!

House elves are surely the greatest of all the hp creatures,hands down.there should be a directos cut where all the story line is cut apart from the bits containing house elves

EDIT:woot h4x0r