Main > Everything Else

Harry Potter Finally Imax 3D

<< < (5/6) > >>

ChadTower:
I have not read the books.  I read a lot, and my whole family has read the books many times over, but I left them alone.  I liked the movies up until Deathly Hallows 1.  I didn't want to spoil them.  My family was nice enough to not spoil them for me.

Deathly Hallows 1 made little sense.  If you hadn't read the books they just kept boucing from random place to place with no explanation, then someone got married without any preamble, then some other stuff happened that was sort of implied but not really explained.  It wasn't a fun movie.

Deathly Hallows 2 was better but the ending just absolutely destroyed the whole series for me.  

The bait and switch classical ending ticked me off.  Either kill Harry and make it right or don't kill Harry and make sequels and spinoffs.  You could hear the record scratch and the publisher's scream of "WHAT THE ---fudgesicle--- NO WE HAVE 3 NEW PRODUCTS IN DEVELOPMENT HARRY IS NOT GOING TO DIE!"  I had fully intended to go back and read the books but now I'm not sure I care enough to bother.

BTW, if you have any issues with 3D and your vision, do not see the Imax version.  I had serious issues making out the action sequences in Deathly Hallows 1 and in a good chunk of 2 I could clearly see the two separate images.  My kids both said the 3D was awesome but it was worse than useless to me.  This might be the last 3D movie I bother to see.  I've seen quite a few of them now and most of them just look like complete crap to me.

Hoopz:

--- Quote from: ChadTower on July 27, 2011, 09:17:01 am ---I have not read the books.  I read a lot, and my whole family has read the books many times over, but I left them alone.  I liked the movies up until Deathly Hallows 1.  I didn't want to spoil them.  My family was nice enough to not spoil them for me.

Deathly Hallows 1 made little sense.  If you hadn't read the books they just kept boucing from random place to place with no explanation, then someone got married without any preamble, then some other stuff happened that was sort of implied but not really explained.  It wasn't a fun movie.

Deathly Hallows 2 was better but the ending just absolutely destroyed the whole series for me. 

The bait and switch classical ending ticked me off.  Either kill Harry and make it right or don't kill Harry and make sequels and spinoffs.  You could hear the record scratch and the publisher's scream of "WHAT THE ---fudgesicle--- NO WE HAVE 3 NEW PRODUCTS IN DEVELOPMENT HARRY IS NOT GOING TO DIE!"  I had fully intended to go back and read the books but now I'm not sure I care enough to bother.

BTW, if you have any issues with 3D and your vision, do not see the Imax version.  I had serious issues making out the action sequences in Deathly Hallows 1 and in a good chunk of 2 I could clearly see the two separate images.  My kids both said the 3D was awesome but it was worse than useless to me.  This might be the last 3D movie I bother to see.  I've seen quite a few of them now and most of them just look like complete crap to me.

--- End quote ---
I haven't seen the most recent movies but have read the books.  It sounds like, in the quest for the almighty dollar at the expense of making a good movie, that the story doesn't explain enough or at all who or where the 7th Horcrux "was".  That context makes the scene you are describing make more sense.

ChadTower:

--- Quote from: Hoopz on July 27, 2011, 09:21:58 am ---I haven't seen the most recent movies but have read the books.  It sounds like, in the quest for the almighty dollar at the expense of making a good movie, that the story doesn't explain enough or at all who or where the 7th Horcrux "was".  That context makes the scene you are describing make more sense.

--- End quote ---

Actually, it did explain who the horcrux was and why.  What they did not explain is why every other horcrux had to be totally destroyed but Harry only had to get hit in the face.

Vigo:

--- Quote from: ChadTower on July 27, 2011, 09:57:16 am ---
--- Quote from: Hoopz on July 27, 2011, 09:21:58 am ---I haven't seen the most recent movies but have read the books.  It sounds like, in the quest for the almighty dollar at the expense of making a good movie, that the story doesn't explain enough or at all who or where the 7th Horcrux "was".  That context makes the scene you are describing make more sense.

--- End quote ---

Actually, it did explain who the horcrux was and why.  What they did not explain is why every other horcrux had to be totally destroyed but Harry only had to get hit in the face.

--- End quote ---

The didn't really touch the importance of having the 3 deathly hollows either. The fail to mention that the stone from the first story is one hallow, and Harry's magic cape is another. They pretty much use the whole hallows thing to point out how bad-ass the wand is. So just like in Order of the Phoenix, where they only casually mentioned the Order once really quickly, we have another movie titled after something that is not pivotal to the rewritten plot.

Rando:
Dang, Harry Potter hate, so sad! :)

I'm 40, married, with kids, gainfully employed, normal.  Read all the books after an Intern of mine recommended them.  Loved reading them, felt that each was better than the last, and bought the last few on their release dates, but had to wait until my wife finished them to read them myself.  We've seen each movie in the theaters, have the DVDs, and will occasionally stop on them when flipping the channels.  We had to wait a week after release to see the last one cause we couldn't get a babysitter, but saw and loved that one as well.  Saw it in 3-D as well at a Dine-In theater, thought that was pretty sweet too. (only seen a couple of the recent batch of 3-D movies, this and Green Lantern, effects on this much better)

Yes we've given a bunch of money to this mass market hype machine, but I think both the written and visual returns have been well worth it and I've personally enjoyed the ride. 

Are the movies completely true to the books?  Not so much, but having only read the books once, I don't really have a problem with the differences.  My wife does more than me, but she has the time to reread the books and focuses on the changes.  But she loves the movies as well.

Quickly regarding some of the comments above:
- The Sorcerer's Stone wasn't a Deathly Hallow (I don't think), that was a man-made item. The Resurection stone was the little stone that was in the Snitch that Harry dropped (can't remember why, so he would in fact die?) when going to face Voldy.
- They don't NEED wands to cast all spells I don't think, and they can learn to non-vocalize spells, but the wands help to focus their energies and depending on the qualities of the wand, make them stronger.  The Elder wand would make its wielder sligthly more powerful than its foe, assuming all other variables were equal.
- I was never really clear on why Harry didn't actually die (or stay dead at least), but the Snape reveal is so good (especially in the book where you were going back and forth on him) that I don't care.

Thumbs-up on overall series from me.  :applaud:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version