Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

[Myr]

New Trailer is out:

http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/40311/ha...lr3_112108.html

[Tiger]

I happen to look forward to this one. I love Harry Potter.

[Thirdeye]

The movie was actually originally suppose to come out tonight. But they pushed it back to not compete with Twilight and because they feel a summer release will net them more money.

[J_Ross]

I kind of hate that they did push it back, I was really looking forward to it, but I can see the reasoning there. Does the fact that it's coming out later mean that there'll be a shorter wait between HBP and DH? Ack, I can't wait. This trailer is quite a bit better than the last one, IMO. It covers more and there were a few good laughs in this one. July is way too far off for me *sigh* I really can't wait to see it.

[Myr]

They also pushed it back because Danny Radcliffe is dancing around naked on stage in NYC and WB didn't want to deal with that while promoting the movie.

[hh5]

I am at least 2 books behind. I'm glad for the extention.

 

They also pushed it back because Danny Radcliffe is dancing around naked on stage in NYC and WB didn't want to deal with that while promoting the movie.

 

If you said he was prancing around ... that should get the Entire East Village to go!!

Edited November 22, 2008 by hh5

[Cynical Romantic]

As far as I'm concerned, they might as well drag it out. The books are all complete and there's only two movies left, and once that's done, a huge well of cash dries up for them, so why not stretch it out as long as possible? Besides, the anticipation for the movies is nowhere near what it was for the books; in the case of the movies, we already know what happens next.

[Pai-kun]

I wish the WB would stop changing so much from the books...

Taking out Dumbledore's funeral

because they "didn't have enough time" and then actually adding a useless scene like when

the Death Eaters burn down Ron's house

... Wtf? I was plenty pissed off at the WB just because of that, so lets just say I didn't get happier when they decided to push the release back a half year. That'll just give them more time to ruin the movie even more.

 

Negative Nancy, over and out.

[Myr]

Actually, Book 7 will be coming out as 2 movies. There was nothing that could be cut from the book.

Nov 2010 and May 2011.

[Pai-kun]

Actually, Book 7 will be coming out as 2 movies. There was nothing that could be cut from the book.

Nov 2010 and May 2011.

Tbh, that's bull to me. They could easily adapt it into one movie. They could shorten down the first half of the book a lot(like most of the camping scenes...). They're just doing it because they'll get double money out of it. They couldn't care less about the integrity of the story, seeing as they kinda raped The Half-blood Prince storyline. And they've managed to turn much bigger books(The Goblet of Fire) into movies... And The Deathly Hallows would be much more easy to shorten down without taking out anything important to the plot than The Goblet of Fire. I dunno, I'm just not on team WB right now.

[J_Ross]

Tbh, that's bull to me. They could easily adapt it into one movie. They could shorten down the first half of the book a lot(like most of the camping scenes...). They're just doing it because they'll get double money out of it. They couldn't care less about the integrity of the story, seeing as they kinda raped The Half-blood Prince storyline. And they've managed to turn much bigger books(The Goblet of Fire) into movies... And The Deathly Hallows would be much more easy to shorten down without taking out anything important to the plot than The Goblet of Fire. I dunno, I'm just not on team WB right now.

Doesn't really matter how long the book is, it's about how much of it is actually important to the main storyline. Goblet of Fire had quite a bit of side storylines that weren't really important to the story as a whole. Hermione's little house elf project, is one, off the top of my head. With Deathly Hollows, it was decided that most of the side storylines (or whatever you want to call them) were too important to the main plotline to cut. So they kept it all. They couldn't cut out very much and still have the story make sense. That's not really the case with Goblet of Fire. *shrug* I'm giddy about it. Means more Harry Potter, I only wish they'd have done it for more of the books. Or at least made the movies longer, I can't really think of one fan that would have complained.

 

They cut things from every book though, if the story can stand without it. It really ticked me off when they cut nearly everything about the marauders out of Prisoner of Azkaban (personally, I think that bit of information was important, not just to the book, but the series). The funeral, in the book was definitely sad, but the story can stand without it. It's something that most people are going to assume is going to happen and just in case, one line of dialogue...something like "the funeral is...xxx" will clear that right up. As long as the actual death scene is done well, I'm not going to complain. Movies are never as good as the books. I've come to accept it.

[Pai-kun]

Doesn't really matter how long the book is, it's about how much of it is actually important to the main storyline. Goblet of Fire had quite a bit of side storylines that weren't really important to the story as a whole. Hermione's little house elf project, is one, off the top of my head. With Deathly Hollows, it was decided that most of the side storylines (or whatever you want to call them) were too important to the main plotline to cut. So they kept it all. They couldn't cut out very much and still have the story make sense. That's not really the case with Goblet of Fire. *shrug* I'm giddy about it. Means more Harry Potter, I only wish they'd have done it for more of the books. Or at least made the movies longer, I can't really think of one fan that would have complained.

 

They cut things from every book though, if the story can stand without it. It really ticked me off when they cut nearly everything about the marauders out of Prisoner of Azkaban (personally, I think that bit of information was important, not just to the book, but the series). The funeral, in the book was definitely sad, but the story can stand without it. It's something that most people are going to assume is going to happen and just in case, one line of dialogue...something like "the funeral is...xxx" will clear that right up. As long as the actual death scene is done well, I'm not going to complain. Movies are never as good as the books. I've come to accept it.

The Goblet of Fire had more important parts that can't be cut imo. The Deathly Hallows would be much easier to turn into one movie than The Goblet of Fire would've been. And a lot of fans are already complaining about them being greedy and making two movies out of a book that could be easily turned into one movie compared to the other books in the series. But making the movies longer wouldn't make people complain.

 

And the funeral scene is the most important one in the book... It sets the ground for the last book because Harry finally decides to go after Voldemort. Sure, they could place that realization somewhere else in the movie... But I don't think they could make it as believable as it would've been with the funeral scene. They are stupid for replacing such an important scene with a useless action scene.

[clumber]

But making the movies longer wouldn't make people complain.

 

 

Im not so sure about that.... Ok, so the Harry Potter fanboys won't complain, but a movie can only be so long before it starts getting inconvenient to watch. 3 to 3.5 hours is pretty much pushing that limit.

 

Martin

[Pai-kun]

Im not so sure about that.... Ok, so the Harry Potter fanboys won't complain, but a movie can only be so long before it starts getting inconvenient to watch. 3 to 3.5 hours is pretty much pushing that limit.

 

Martin

If people could sit through the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie(which was one of the most boring movies ever), they should be able to sit through a 3-hour Harry Potter movie. I mean, people who go to watch the movie most likely would just be happy... The parents would be a problem though. But yeah, over three hours would be a little much(not to me, though, lol).

[canundra]

Tbh, that's bull to me. They could easily adapt it into one movie. They could shorten down the first half of the book a lot(like most of the camping scenes...). They're just doing it because they'll get double money out of it. They couldn't care less about the integrity of the story, seeing as they kinda raped The Half-blood Prince storyline. And they've managed to turn much bigger books(The Goblet of Fire) into movies... And The Deathly Hallows would be much more easy to shorten down without taking out anything important to the plot than The Goblet of Fire. I dunno, I'm just not on team WB right now.

 

IMO, the trailer looks awesome and this movie will be awesome.

 

What needs to be realized is that movies and books are two completely different mediums through which a story can be expressed. People need to stop comparing between books and movies, because almost always, they will end up differently. To expect that they won't is only setting yourself up for major disappointment. Certain things can work in books that can't work in movies, and vice versa.

 

And so what if they decide to split the seventh book in half? IMO, it should already be a given that the studios are out to make money. And, to be honest, people ARE going to see both movies. And, each time, people will come out having had a good time. So there really is no big deal.

 

Treat both the books and the movies as two separate things. Some things will get lost in the translation over to a new medium. It's to be expected. Enjoy both for what they are, and don't waste your time getting pissed off over something that's not worth it.

[J_Ross]

The Goblet of Fire had more important parts that can't be cut imo. The Deathly Hallows would be much easier to turn into one movie than The Goblet of Fire would've been. And a lot of fans are already complaining about them being greedy and making two movies out of a book that could be easily turned into one movie compared to the other books in the series. But making the movies longer wouldn't make people complain.

I'm trying to find a really important scene that wasn't included in GOF and I really can't. That movie included a LOT of what was in the book. I expected less, actually, before I saw the movie. Almost everything was included, even if only in passing. Things that took up an entire chapter of the book, may have only took seconds in the movie, but they were still there. I remember a couple chapters about Rita Skeeter in the book and while they only spent a little bit of time on her in the movie, they still got the point across. If you go through the chapter index in Gof, you wont really find much that wasn't included in the movie. And the things that you do find, don't really make a difference. I'm not saying they didn't cut out a lot. They did, but not really anything important. They cut out quite a bit that I enjoyed reading about or found quite funny (SPEW, Mrs.Weasley's invitation, Weasley's Wizard Wheezes and so forth) but none of those things really keep the story from being told. None of them are really important to the plot, much as I loved them. Deathly Hallows doesn't have many 'small' things going on.

 

It's funny that GOF is the one being mentioned because I thought this was one of the most accurate movies of the bunch. My point is that size doesn't matter. The details that take up the space in those books and whether or not they're important is what matters. Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the shorter books and there was a major detail, imo, that was cut from that movie. The movie still stood without it and the story, on screen hasn't suffered because of the cut.

 

 

And the funeral scene is the most important one in the book... It sets the ground for the last book because Harry finally decides to go after Voldemort. Sure, they could place that realization somewhere else in the movie... But I don't think they could make it as believable as it would've been with the funeral scene. They are stupid for replacing such an important scene with a useless action scene.

I don't really see how it's replacing the funeral because both events happened. One's being included and the other isn't. And I do think it could be just as believable without the funeral. The point isn't the funeral, it's the fact that Dumbledore is gone. The funeral was an emotional scene for some (myself not included so, here's hoping I'm not just being biased or something) but the plot doesn't need it to stand. Maybe the story would have been better for some with this scene included but it's not going to make a difference as far as the plot is concerned. The funeral isn't the point. The fact that D died, is. And the point isn't where Harry decides to go after Voldemort (and that Hermione and Ron tell him he's not going alone) but the fact that it happens. The revelation can be made anywhere after the death and still be powerful as long as it's written well and the actors do a good job translating it. Just my opinion though. I really don't think the movie is worse off for not including it.

 

, the trailer looks awesome and this movie will be awesome.

 

What needs to be realized is that movies and books are two completely different mediums through which a story can be expressed.

I know, I was fully giddy when I saw the trailer. I may have squealed once or twice. I thought it looked amazing and I really can't wait. *g*

And I totally agree. As long as the story is told and told well, I don't really mind if the little details are changed. I can still go back, read the books and watch my own little movie in my head if I need it to be 100% accurate. *shrug*

 

I want to say, though, that I think the writers and whoever decideds what goes in and what comes out, have done a decent job. Especially when compared with other books that have been made into movies. You've gotta expect that movies are not going to be completely the same as the books they're made for, but the Harry Potter movies have surprised me, more than once.

[canundra]

I don't really see how it's replacing the funeral because both events happened. One's being included and the other isn't. And I do think it could be just as believable without the funeral. The point isn't the funeral, it's the fact that Dumbledore is gone. The funeral was an emotional scene for some (myself not included so, here's hoping I'm not just being biased or something) but the plot doesn't need it to stand. Maybe the story would have been better for some with this scene included but it's not going to make a difference as far as the plot is concerned. The funeral isn't the point. The fact that D died, is. And the point isn't where Harry decides to go after Voldemort (and that Hermione and Ron tell him he's not going alone) but the fact that it happens. The revelation can be made anywhere after the death and still be powerful as long as it's written well and the actors do a good job translating it. Just my opinion though. I really don't think the movie is worse off for not including it.

 

Actually, in the HBP movie, there's a scene in which Hermione, Ron, and Harry are discussing his decision to go after Voldemort. You can see it very briefly in the trailer (or, at least, hear it). Hermione says to Harry, "You can't do this alone." or something to that effect. I'm assuming that's in response to Harry's insistence on going after Voldemort.

 

The only thing I'm angry about is that they pushed back the movie to next year. I understand that they want to make money, but seriously? I could do w/o all the hullabaloo over the dreadfully-written Twilight.

[J_Ross]

Yup, I saw that too and assumed the same. I just really don't think it matters that the conversation isn't at the funeral. I don't think it makes much of a difference, not to the story and definitely doesn't make a difference for me.

 

I've yet to read Twilight, but there are a lot of people having fits about that movie so I can see why they pushed it back. Doesn't make it suck any less.

[pitchan]

I'll go watch the movie, and then whine continuously to my parents afterwards about how different it is to the book, and how much better the book is when compared to the movie.

[Pai-kun]

I'm trying to find a really important scene that wasn't included in GOF and I really can't.

That was my point.

 

It's funny that GOF is the one being mentioned because I thought this was one of the most accurate movies of the bunch

That was also my point.

 

I don't really see how it's replacing the funeral because both events happened.

What? The Death Eaters burning down Ron's house didn't happen. They added it to the movie. So yes, it is replacing an existing scene(the funeral).

 

Btw, avoid Twilight if you can. It's horribly written and the story is laughable(much like the books' fan-base, aka tween girls). When I first started reading the first book, I actually thought it was a parody... I kept laughing until my friend informed me that it was the real book. Maybe those books just weren't for me, lol. I mean, obviously some people like them... Odd enough.

[Cynical Romantic]

Oddly enough, I thought GoF was one of the least accurate movies of the bunch. Sure, plot-wise it was pretty accurate, but I thought the portrayal of the characters was just way off. Particularly Dumbledore. I was so mad when I saw GoF and was relieved that OotP, while maybe a bit less factually close to the book, had got it right in terms of tone and message once again. OotP was my fave movie so far, I think, and GoF was my least favourite.

[J_Ross]

That was my point.

Yeah, I was just saying that while GOF was the longer book, not everything in the book was really all that important. While DH is shorter, a lot more happens, imo, so just because it's the shorter book, doesn't mean it would be easier to make into one movie than GOF was. GOF had all the events in the movie, yes, but things that took chapters to get through in the book, took seconds in the movie. But *shrugs* I could be way off the mark. I'll just never complain that I get more Harry Potter. DH wasn't my favorite book, not by far, but if they're going to take the time and do it right, go out with a bang, I say more power to 'em (though I've been hoping in vain that they leave off the epilogue). And even if they are just doing it for the money, I love every second of it. I have my problems with both the movies and the books (though, I love the books infinitely more) but I've been reading since book one. I got attached, pathetically so to the books and since those are sadly over, I'm going to try and strech out the enjoyment or whatever with the movies.

 

Steven Kloves has done a pretty good job so far (not including POA, or OotP, he didn't even do the latter), I'm really looking forward to it.

 

What? The Death Eaters burning down Ron's house didn't happen. They added it to the movie.

ROTFL, I'm going to just take your word for it. I can see the scene so clearly in my head, but I do have a very vivid imagination. Really. I actually had the GOF movie on my shelf for a year before I realized I'd never seen it because I could see it so clearly in my head. *facepalm* I would have sworn though that Ron's house being attacked was mentioned, at least in passing, but...*shrug* I'm in desperate need of a re-read, so I'm just gonna nod my head and pretend I knew what I was talking about. Lol.

 

For me, the funeral wasn't really the greatest scene in the book. It wasn't even really a big one for me. I was actually disappointed with it and for me, the only worthwhile bit that happened was that Harry decided to go after Voldemort and Ron and Hermione told him they were going with and there was nothing he could do to stop 'em. I expected it to be a really emotional scene (much like the scene with Sirius Death in book five) but it wasn't for me. The death scene was done well but I thought the funeral was lacking. And even if it isn't, the story stands without it. This I stand by even if I'm making up scenes wherein Ron's house is attacked *headdesk* The story doesn't need the funeral. It wasn't the important part. The death itself was.

 

Oddly enough, I thought GoF was one of the least accurate movies of the bunch. Sure, plot-wise it was pretty accurate, but I thought the portrayal of the characters was just way off. Particularly Dumbledore. I was so mad when I saw GoF and was relieved that OotP, while maybe a bit less factually close to the book, had got it right in terms of tone and message once again. OotP was my fave movie so far, I think, and GoF was my least favourite.

I was talking plot wise. I don't really like movie characterizations, especially with these movies. A lot gets lost in translation for me (but I feel Ron was done fairly well) and it's not just with Dumbledore. *sigh* I love the movies still (PoA, not included) but the characterizations could have been much better, I definitely agree. I didn't really see much wrong with the tone of GoF, though. I thought they were fairly well matched.

[Pai-kun]

ROTFL, I'm going to just take your word for it. I can see the scene so clearly in my head, but I do have a very vivid imagination. Really. I actually had the GOF movie on my shelf for a year before I realized I'd never seen it because I could see it so clearly in my head. *facepalm* I would have sworn though that Ron's house being attacked was mentioned, at least in passing, but...*shrug* I'm in desperate need of a re-read, so I'm just gonna nod my head and pretend I knew what I was talking about. Lol.

Omg, now you're making me doubt myself... I'm 98% sure I'm right, but maybe I've just forgotten it. I never read HBP as much as I read the first five... I've read it like three times or something(I read the first five over and over and over... Yeah. I had no life, lol.) I'm as good as sure though. Google-time!

 

Ok, now I've googled it... And according to some people, they are now burning down Hagrid's hut instead. At least in the trailer. This is all confusing me! I guess I'll just have to wait until the movie comes out... November 21st! Oh. Wait. JULY. *mumbles* Yes I'm bitter. I hope it'll be worth the long, LONG wait.

 

EDIT: I just watched the International trailer again... And it seems to me that BOTH the hut and Ron's house gets burnt down. I think a certain screenplay writer has a little problem with fire, lol.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Pai-chan

[canundra]

Oddly enough, I thought GoF was one of the least accurate movies of the bunch. Sure, plot-wise it was pretty accurate, but I thought the portrayal of the characters was just way off. Particularly Dumbledore. I was so mad when I saw GoF and was relieved that OotP, while maybe a bit less factually close to the book, had got it right in terms of tone and message once again. OotP was my fave movie so far, I think, and GoF was my least favourite.

 

Aah, Dumbledore. Michael Gambon will never be as good as Richard Harris, IMO. Gambon completely ruined the movie version of Dumbledore.

 

Omg, now you're making me doubt myself... I'm 98% sure I'm right, but maybe I've just forgotten it. I never read HBP as much as I read the first five... I've read it like three times or something(I read the first five over and over and over... Yeah. I had no life, lol.) I'm as good as sure though. Google-time!

 

Ok, now I've googled it... And according to some people, they are now burning down Hagrid's hut instead. At least in the trailer. This is all confusing me! I guess I'll just have to wait until the movie comes out... November 21st! Oh. Wait. JULY. *mumbles* Yes I'm bitter. I hope it'll be worth the long, LONG wait.

 

EDIT: I just watched the International trailer again... And it seems to me that BOTH the hut and Ron's house gets burnt down. I think a certain screenplay writer has a little problem with fire, lol.

 

Well, you can never be sure with trailers. I've come to realize that a lot of the scenes that are included in trailers don't end up being in the theatrical version. Instead, you'll find those scenes in the Deleted Scenes section of the DVD.

Edited November 25, 2008 by canundra

[Pai-kun]

Aah, Dumbledore. Michael Gambon will never be as good as Richard Harris, IMO. Gambon completely ruined the movie version of Dumbledore.

 

 

 

Well, you can never be sure with trailers. I've come to realize that a lot of the scenes that are included in trailers don't end up being in the theatrical version. Instead, you'll find those scenes in the Deleted Scenes section of the DVD.

lol, like the ending to The Golden Compass. I love how they showed part of it in the trailer and entirely cut it out of the movie(dunno about the DVD though). The whole friggin' ending... That still perplexes me to this day.

 

About Dumbledore... I loved Harris' Dumby, and hated Gambon's Dumby at first... But he's grown on me. I liked him in The Order of the Phoenix. And he seems cool in this trailer. So here's hoping...