The first few Harry Potter movies establish some characters and concepts that are abandoned or diminished in later films. Here are things I noticed:
- the points system
- the pointy hats the students wear
- wizards chess
- Hagrid barely being in the last few films
- Colin the camera kid
- Berty Botts every-flavored beans
- Justin
- invisibility cloak
- Hermione's cat
- dueling club
- the house ghosts
- Mrs. Norris
Th points system in the books became less and less important as the series went on. The last time the house cup was given out was in the third book.
As the movies went on, the filmmakers moved from wizarding robes and more with normal clothes. I'm not sure why.
Wizard's chess was really only important in the first book/movie.
I believe I heard the actor who played Colin chose not to appear in later films and insted of replacing him, they created a new character that combined the two Creevey brothers--Nigel.
It is odd that they stopped using the invisibility cloak. As I wrote in another topic here, they mostly kept to the scenes with the cloak in the first two movies compared to the books, but then just started to drop it, especially once Yates came on as director in OoP.
Crookshanks was really only important in the third book/movie.
The dueling club was also only important in the second book/movie. After that, the DA became a modified dueling club but far more serious.
The house ghosts were mostly only filler to begin with. Peeves (a poltergeist, not a ghost) was even cut out from the movies altogether. About the only real scene they cut with a ghost was the discussion between Harry and Nick after Sirius' death.
Bob
Most of these were abandoned in the books and overall didn't mean anything, like Mrs. Norris and Bertie Bots. But I agree with Hagrid getting such tiny screentime and the invisibility cloak.
shareThe only one which stood out was Hagrid becoming background. After everything, his final scene & shot is a non verbal exit? wtf is that...
As for everything else, these films are (as we know) quite long enough... to revisit stuff, much of which I'd chalk up to younger students' experiences, would be redundant.
Even Quidditch in POA shows there's really not much more to see or do for the viewer.
...top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/
It would have been interesting to see the harry and nick talk about death in the order of the phoenix. Too bad no colin creevy but he wasnt a really vital after chamber of secrets.
shareI think Colin the camera kid died, that's why he was never mentioned. I think he was killed in the 2nd film.
shareHe was killed in the Battle of Hogwarts, last film. But if I'm not mistaken the actor quit after the 2nd film so he was replaced with Nigel. Still, not much of a vital character so I don't see the problem with his absence.
shareStill, not much of a vital character so I don't see the problem with his absence.
"one of the posters above is baffled about why Harry's invisibility cape was not used as much in the later books/movies as in the earlier ones."
No one I read questioned why the Cloak wasn't used as much in the subsequent books, just the movies. I would say the use of the cloak was generally consistent throughout the book series. much more in the final book, but the movies generally dropped many of those uses in the latter movies.
Bob
Clearly the visual impact of the screen invisibility special effect was deemed more likely to be tiresome on repetition than use of the imagination of the reader.
shareGreat filmmakers could do the invisibility effects far more frequently without it becoming repetitive. The stupidest absence of the cloak was wen Harry went back into the Forbidden Forest in DH. One of the DEs came back and told Voldy that Harry was not there with Harry arriving seconds later. Was the DE blind?
Bob
Great filmmakers could do the invisibility effects far more frequently without it becoming repetitive.
The stupidest absence of the cloak was wen Harry went back into the Forbidden Forest in DH. One of the DEs came back and told Voldy that Harry was not there with Harry arriving seconds later. Was the DE blind?
So you have never, ever, criticized a movie? You have never thought something in a scene was done poorly, or could have been done better differently?
Nobody is asking you to trust any poster on this board. It's a discussion board. Bob was giving his opinion about a scene and the movie. Nowhere did he say you needed to agree. If you want to blindly screech that filmmakers are perfect and no movie in history has a single flaw and directors are incapable of making mistakes, thats your choice. But your need demean someone elses opinion is just sad.
Especially since you actually do criticize things about the series yourself. You were very critical of Michael Gambon's portrayl of Dumbledore. Especially the scene where he yells at Harry about his name coming from the goblet. Why should someome trust you more than an actor with decades of experience? What movies have you acted in? Why do you know more than a well respected, professional actor? And if you are critical of Gambon's portrayl, you must think the directors did a poor job with him because they didn't tell him to do scenes differently. So you know better than Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell, and David Yates?
So you have never, ever, criticized a movie? You have never thought something in a scene was done poorly, or could have been done better differently?
Nobody is asking you to trust any poster on this board
It's a discussion board
Bob was giving his opinion about a scene and the movie.
You were very critical of Michael Gambon's portrayl of Dumbledore. Especially the scene where he yells at Harry about his name coming from the goblet. Why should someome trust you more than an actor with decades of experience?
Why should someome trust you more than an actor with decades of experience
What movies have you acted in?
Why do you know more than a well respected, professional actor?
And if you are critical of Gambon's portrayl, you must think the directors did a poor job with him because they didn't tell him to do scenes differently.
So you know better than Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell, and David Yates?
"So you say. But you are not a great filmmaker."
Nor are you, so we are on equal footing. I have seen great films and the HP series isn't close to those. These are good films, maybe better than average, but they are not great. The Star Wars Original trilogy and the HP series had similar themes but the ST OT were far better films than the HP series.
"How many Harry Potter fans are there who trust the opinion of "A.Bob on the internet" more than J.K. Rowling, David Yates, and the other makers of the Harry Potter movies?"
I think just as many trust me as trust you, yet you seem to assume you know far more than Rowling.
"I assume he did use it. I don't see any reason to think he didn't."
In the movie, Harry had on a lightweight jacket unzipped, a zippered shirt, mostly zipped up, and a shirt underneath. He had on pants (I'm guessing jeans). There were no lumps where the cloak could be hidden in his clothes.
And yes, movies and books can have stupid scenes. Many aspects of the second book were ridiculous. The movie had the sink with the serpents on it just happening to sit over the entrance to the Chamber despite the fact that Slytherin was dead long before the advent of indoor plumbing. It actually makes me wonder what the floor girls room was when Salazar Slytherin was still at the school.
Bob
"So you say. But you are not a great filmmaker."
Nor are you, so we are on equal footing.
I have seen great films and the HP series isn't close to those. These are good films, maybe better than average, but they are not great.
I think just as many trust me as trust you
And yes, movies and books can have stupid scenes
"What allowed you to get off your high horse and down from your lofty mountain of arrogance? "
I don't have a high horse. You seem to have one. All my posts here are based on my opinions. You have always been free to disagree but instead, you seem to take everything I say as an affront who you are and what you think and take things so personally that you can't think straight.
I can say that these films were not great, but still good or better than average. I am not saying that everyone else should agree with me like you have done such as calling me racist for not agreeing with your interpretation.
"Therefore you are saying the writers and audience members of such scenes are stupid."
There you go again in intentionally misunderstanding me. are you swaying authors and filmmakers are gods and can do no wrong? Get off your high horse and actually try to understand what I am writing.
Bob
There you go again in intentionally misunderstanding me...try to understand what I am writing.
I have seen great films and the HP series isn't close to those. These are good films, maybe better than average, but they are not great..
"Consider the purpose of using such a qualifier."
I don't use a qualifier because I make the assumption that I am talking with sane people. I do apologize for that. Al of my statements should be read as my opinion and the qualifier of "I think" or something similar should be accepted.
I have explained this to you before. I think you are enjoy being a troll.
Bob
Al of my statements should be read as my opinion and the qualifier of "I think" or something similar should be accepted.
I think you are enjoy being a troll.
"The equation is simple on the internet: Modest, respectful, considerate people qualify their opinions with "I think". Pompous, arrogant people do not."
you do not. In most of the posts here, you do not qualify that something is your opinion. You expect others to accept your points and get angry when they don't. You have stated without qualification that you know what Rowling was thinking when writing the books. You have stated without qualifications that you know that Rowling was speaking only to one part of her audience when she explained the plots of her books.
You stated that I was, without qualifications, a racist for your view of house elves. You do not live up to your own standards here.
"I am on the internet pretending to be arrogant. You are on the internet pretending not to be."
Another statement that you consider to be a fact without qualification. I am here for fun and just want to discuss the HP series. No arrogance involved. And I don't see the difference between pretending to be arrogant and being arrogant. You are what you write on the internet. You, as others here have stated, are arrogant.
Bob