Harry Potter Discussion and Appreciation Thread

[Elwe Singollo]

So is it going to be 'lotr movie' long?

[petzke_42]

It was a little under 3 hours I believe...it was pretty long, but if you enjoyed the last two movies, you won't even notice it.

[sgeureka]

I have yet to read the book, though I wouldn't consider myself lost, but dissapointed. I didn't feel like there was an ending. No Baselisk to stick it to. In fact, I the "ending" was in act four and then replayed again in act five from a distance. I didn't expect it to end with Harry on a broom

Out of the three films it is my least favorite.

I didn't like the third book as much because I also felt it had no real end. Although it was still a good book.

So I finally watched the movie a few days ago, and I was surprised to find out how good it was. Must have been at least two years since I read the third book, and I had forgotten almost all the details, so I didn't notice the lack of details in the movie.

I would have wished that there was one or two more scenes with Harry and Lupin to explain what's going on, but I am glad that they focused more on the end bit. And I liked that there were no big Quidditch scenes (except for that one). I can't stay focused when I have to read a 30 pages Quidditch game, and I also don't like 15 min Quidditch straight on screen (and I find that Harry on the broom looks just fake, although I would say that the VFX department is doing a good job with all the other things).

Anyway, does somebody know who'll be directing the fourth movie? The same guy as with this movie?

[Elwe Singollo]

It was a little under 3 hours I believe...it was pretty long, but if you enjoyed the last two movies, you won't even notice it.

According to Movies.com, it was approx. 136 minutes, so lets see... my math skillz arent the best... but lets see anyways... 136... divide that... Around 2 hours and 26 minutes?

[Anubis]

I have to admit, I think this was the worst of the three films. OK, there was the odd humour scene with the punch but it wasn't amazing. I think the films are getting a little too overrated now. Just my two cents

Actually the time was 2hrs and 16min

[Elwe Singollo]

Yah, the third film wasn't as good as Shrek 2, but oh well, those two are completely different movies, ones 'fantasy' and ones 'comedy', so yah, haha..

Where did you find out the actual length of the movie?

[Anubis]

Me just clever! lol

I really want to see Shrek 2 as soon as it comes out

[Elwe Singollo]

Oh well, i'll stick with my 136 minutes Haha..

[5aret]

I liked Harry Potter 3. I agree though, the ending could have been better...

[Elwe Singollo]

Well, Harry Potter 4 is going to be super long then, considering the 4th book was like 'a lot of pages'. It won't be turned into 2 movies like what Kill Bill did, thats what i read at upcomingmovies.com, or yahoo movies.

[Shipperahoy]

The fact that they aren't going to turn it into 2 movies doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to a super long movie. What it probably means is that they're going to cut the heck out of it. There already was an article that said they were most likey going to cut the Dursely's out of the Goblet of Fire movie completely. I just don't know about that, it seems so wrong.

[5aret]

The fact that they aren't going to turn it into 2 movies doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to a super long movie. What it probably means is that they're going to cut the heck out of it. There already was an article that said they were most likey going to cut the Dursely's out of the Goblet of Fire movie completely. I just don't know about that, it seems so wrong.

I agree. So the longer the book is, the less you get put of the movie because they cut out several important(to me anyway) parts of the book. The movies ending was diffrent then the ending in the book because the ending was cut out. (I like the ending in the book to)

[Elwe Singollo]

The fact that they aren't going to turn it into 2 movies doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to a super long movie. What it probably means is that they're going to cut the heck out of it. There already was an article that said they were most likey going to cut the Dursely's out of the Goblet of Fire movie completely. I just don't know about that, it seems so wrong.

The LOTR movies (all three of them) were cut up as well, and were still pretty long, but yah... I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books, but wasn't Dursely an important, but small character?

[5aret]

Dursley is not a character. They are Harrys uncle, aunt and fat cousin. They are the Dursleys. They have a small but important roll in Harry Potter. Its funny seeing Harry doing things to the Dursleys.

[Shipperahoy]

The LOTR movies (all three of them) were cut up as well, and were still pretty long, but yah... I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books, but wasn't Dursely an important, but small character?

To me the Dursely's are a vital part of the books. Some may not agree but I think their parts are important. Besides there was an absolutely hilarious moment with the Harry, the Dursely's, and the Weasely's in the beginning of Goblet of Fire and it would be a crying shame to have it cut out IMO.