For the thrid time, still obsessed with Harry Potter

[PhoenixSongbird]

Hope you find this ladies!

is this thew wrong place to mention we've been invited to a private showing on thursday, inc drinks and nibbles...?

[innocent]

can't actually make it, but there you go...

Tutter, can someone else go in your place. I am going on thursday, 2 days, looking forward to it, but not excited like I am for the book.

Private showing of..?

Film? - hmph.

Book? -

fraid not bom - tis a works thing of dh's

ah

i see have posted in the wrong place if i wanted to generate real angst and dribbling envy...

(where are the movie addicts hanging out atm?)

If it was a book reading I would be really , but it can't be

Haven't got time to think of anything right now but will come back & do some later!

I think Alan Rickman is perfect as Snape! Although he is a little old perhaps for the part and not as angular as I would imagine Snape to be, he has the voice and face absolutely perfect. I loved the scene in OoTP film where Umbridge is questioning him
"you originally applied for defence against the dark arts?"
"Yesss"
"and you were unsucesfull?"
"Obviously"

Do think Jeremy Irons would have done a good job too though but Alan Rickman is superb. I loved him in Robin Hood too - he is a great baddie!

One thing that did grate on me in the film though was when Umbridge asked for more Veritaserum Snape mentioned the last of it was used on Cho Chang and gave Harry a significant look. I really don't think Snape would care about Harry knowing she hadn't betrayed them on purpose! All in all I thought film was good though, got the essence of the book in it. My DH enjoyed it too but he said he thought the ending wasn't big enough, didn't feel finished. He said the same about the last film too. I think for us avid readers we see each film as a chapter but people just watching the films don't.

Loving the 'first chapter' by the way!

Beckle - I'm confused. In the book it isn't Cho who tells about the DA, it's Marietta, Cho's friend. Did they not put that character in?

no! they were busted bu cho! and then umbridge broke into the room of requirement.
they completely changed the story-and missed out the cool bit where marietta gets sneak written on her face in boils!

Oh! That is a disappointment.

I suppose they figured that they had introduced enough new characters. Also, maybe it's just me but I think the films are a little 'lighter' than the books. Maybe they felt that the curse Hermione did would seem a bit too cruel. But, if they twisted it so it was Cho ... that changes the complexion of her relationship with Harry quite a lot, even if she was drugged.

Hmmmm.

Lots of lighter moments in the films, like leaving Filch the chocolates that made him come out in boils!

I guess they are aimed at a slightly different market. My dh, db and ddad all like the films but none of them would dream of picking up one of the books!!

Also, a few people on here have said that they let their dc watch the films but not read the books.

I have always felt that the films can only get the essence of the story in - the books are way too long to follow too closely. Have you seen Philadelphia? The one with Tom Hanks as the AIDS victim and Denzel Washington as the lawyer. (Bear with me, this is relevant) There is a book of the film. It is quite a long and involved film but the book is only about 200 pages long, and it is exactly the same story - same dialogue, descriptions are spot on, nothing is missed out. So, if you turn that around, in order to get everything in the books into a film they would have to be 200 pages or less! Or they'd have to do a Pride and Predjudice style tv adaptation which would not be anywhere near as commercially viable.

I'm glad that, knowing how much they would have to miss out when they made the films, JKR didn't shorten the later books.

I see what you mean Kneazle, looking at the LOTR films they were each 3hrs long and very involved but very very good. But they were aimed at an adult audience whereas I think many children would be disappointed/bored at the HP films being that long! I wouldn't mind though

I do think its odd what they choose to put in and leave out of the book, ie the goat thing which went completely over the head of people like my dh (ie, haven't read earlier books), and yet leave out stuff like the arguments between McGonagall & Umbridge, & Marietta.

I guess that is why they get paid millions to make movies and you and I don't, rosmerta

yeah, if we'd made them they'd probably be about 500 hrs long!

Lets just pray they don't do Harry Potter the Musical!

Btw, I've added to the story, someone else's turn now!

oh damn, I've just realised, I've got my book club this week so instead of rereading HBP I'm going to have to read Saturday!

Oh - that's bad timing!

Just read your addition - very good. I'll have a think. Maybe someone else will get there first. Gotta go now as dd is awake.

what goat thing???[puzzled!]

Hello MrsWeasley,
I is leaving some tarte au chocolat in the fridge for you for laters.

I may be disappearing for 2 hours and 18 mins later to go and see my friend Dobby on a big screen later, if that is ok with you?! And his friend Harry Potter too.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!

am loving the story as well - please don't feel i have to approve of any of it ( although it's coming along just beautifully! ) i like how everything is set up by different writers for things to happen later on - oh! look! it's draco! what a surprise!!! :D

Have you seen the film, filch?

yes! and read all the books!

Apparently Aberforth was prosecuted for performing "inappropriate charms on a goat". Dumbledore tells Harry in GoF. The way we know that Aberforth is the bar tender at the Hog's Head is because he is described quite similarly to Dumbledore, he is vaugely familiar and he smells of goats. Also, JKR confirmed that he is at an open meeting at the Edinburgh Book Festival a few years ago. It's all on the lexicon.