Harry Potter 6 is a LETDOWN!!!

since they have cut so much of the book - it does make you wonder why they have bothered making book 7 into two movies - there doesnt seem much to put in it - as all those other little sub plots established over this book and book 5 are all not touched upon in the movie versions!

oh i know why!!

why should WB make 7 very profitable movies out of 7 books, when they can make 8 profitable movies out of 7 books!!!!
 
Fair enough the film was a let down and the actors were dire but you can not expect David Yates and the screenwriting team to follow the book word-for-word. It's something you would have gotten used to since the second film. Considering the book was "rushed" by JKR and Yates joined the directing team as a novice to the franchise, I personally thought he done a good job. :)
 
I agree with this, I love both the film and the book. Some people don't seem to be able to understand that they cannot put EVERYTHING into the films. What may seem vital to you clearly isn't to JKR, who has the final say on every script. Considering she wrote the flipping things I think she knows best on importance.
 
It was an average Harry Potter let down by its source material i.e the book. Once you cut the waffle and mini plots, its exposed that there really isn't much of a main plot and that the half blood prince tag is pretty minor.

So in my opinion they did the best with what they had and even then the film was long. By the way, if you're wondering why an action sequence was cut from the end, I reckon it's due to wanting to save that kind of action sequence for the final film.
 
have to admit saw it a second time and it was acutally better:o but i wont be seeing this one 8 times like i did order of the phoenix:o still should not have missed out dursley though


quite funny when the inferi came on yesterday a kid shotus DOBBY:D
 
HBP has always been the weakest book to me. DH comes a close second with its endless chapters of camping but at least it makes up for that with some great action/adventure moments, excitement and drama.

Whilst the backstory was interesting, HBP had far too much teenage angst and the actual important plot didn't kick in properly until too late. The film suffers from the same problem - the plot makes it unevenly paced and I wouldn't be surprised if many people found this a little boring. The attack at the Burrow actually improved things imo.

It was a decent film but suffered from being based upon the weakest source material so far.

My only major complaint is why does this writer/director insist upon having the Weasley twins speak most of their lines in unison. They're two of my favourite characters and it drives me up the bloody wall!
 
They didn't forget to add the battle. They made a decision not to. They said that there is the big battle in the 7th book so they didn't want a battle in the 6th to detract from that. They are really making a thing of the battle in the 7th. That is sort of why they added the burrow scene. To add more action and to make up for there not being a battle at the end.

Personally i think if they had stuck to book and had Harry frozen then i don't think it would have come across well on screen. We would have just seen Dan Radcliffe standing still. It's good in the books because we know what he is thinking from his thoughts but on screen it wouldn't have worked as well. And it wasn't like he wasn't going to do anything. He had his wand aimed. He was going to do something but Snape stopped him. And it sort of shows his trust in Dumbledore.

Finally on the bit about the Diadem, I am pretty sure they know how they will get round it. The 7th book came out when around the time the 5th movie came out. They would have seen that and if it was going to cause any major problems then they would have put it into the scripts. They obviously know how they will get round the fact they didn't show it in this film.
 
The biggest "ARGH!" to me is Gambon. He admits to never having read the books - well that much was obvious. He is very like Dumbledore... the only problem is he seems to be Aberforth, not Albus!

It's clear which actors have read the books and which haven't, Umbridge, Luna, Lockheart, Lav-Lav, McGonagall, Snape etc all perfect.

Slughorn, Dumbledore mark II, Sirius (who is about twenty years older than he is supposed to be - he is 34 in POA, as are Remus and Pettigrew!) are all very off the mark.
 
not word for word but key points were left out to the detriment of that silly cafe scene and the burrow being destroyed and it wa salmost like sirius black was not dead. the half blood prince was supposed to unravle why voldemort is the way he is and it only got half baked:mad: there millions of postings above about this.
 
Film writing and book writing are two very different things. You've got chapters, or even whole books to lay down a character. In a movie it's a thirty second hook. Want the audience know we're dealing with inseparable identical twins? Easy, say the same lines in unison - job instantly done. It's not rocket science, movies do it all the time, so it's hardly a revelation.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
Haven't seen the film, but if they have removed most of Rowling's overlong, waffly 'plotting' and writing then good for them. :)

Book 4 onwarRAB needed a damn good editor - so much dross in them that they could have had at least half of the material chopped out and so left a much better story.
 
Back
Top