Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Spoilers)

[Coret]

Well, first you have to remember this movie was supposed to come out in November of last year. But since Twilight came out they pushed it back. It makes me wonder if they redid what was in the movie to focus more on the "Teenage Love" aspect to try and compete with Twilight. Which if that was the case would kind of upset me.

Personally I can't wait till the movie comes out on DVD and see what they add back into it.

[Masta' Bo]

Harry Potter will never have to compete with Twilight. The latter is not on the same level in any aspect, be it on film or written.

As for an extended version--unlikely. The cast and crew are definitely not the same as say, the LOTR cast and crew, they want to finish the series rather than further develop a story. It sucks, I know.

[gfxguy]

As for an extended version--unlikely. The cast and crew are definitely not the same as say, the LOTR cast and crew, they want to finish the series rather than further develop a story. It sucks, I know.

I agree it's unlikely, but like I said... I'd heard they had well over 3 hours and chopped it; that would mean they wouldn't really have to film new stuff to add. Lord of the Rings... when they decided to do extended, had to call back for the first movie, but after that they filmed more during the regular primary filming and just used that... they didn't have to call back people or spend a lot of extra money.

So... if they already have the footage, it'd be a waste to not do it... on the other hand, people might whine that they want extended versions of all the older movies, too. Whatever. It would also be pretty gorram annoying to just have a "deleted scenes" on the DVD instead of a real extended version, too.

[Coret]

Harry Potter will never have to compete with Twilight. The latter is not on the same level in any aspect, be it on film or written.

You will have no argument with me about that, but the producers have a different view on things. After all they did move it back, because they didn't want to compete with Twilight. Just because a book is better, and a movie is better doesn't always guarantee that stupid people will realize that.

[meeotch]

I never realized that that was the reason that it got moved back. The reason I had heard given was that they wanted it released closer to Deathly Hallows, but I was always skeptical of that reasoning. I am much more convinced of this reason put forth.

[GrayMattR]

Makes me want to read the book to pick up what I missed, but that means I'd need to read all of them, and we all know I'm far too lazy to do that.

That's why they have books on cd. Get it from your local library for free. The narrator is excellent and you'll get all the back story.

After seeing the movie a second time, I still really like it but wanted more of the horcrux mystery and less of the uncomfortable teenage stuff. I realized that movies four through six had the director and producer saying "we want to focus on the teenage hormones" That's not what the Harry Potter story is about - it's about good versus evil! No wonder they're splitting the seventh book into two movies, because they left out the important stuff from this one that drives the actions of Harry in the last book.

[Gingerbeard Man]

I never realized that that was the reason that it got moved back. The reason I had heard given was that they wanted it released closer to Deathly Hallows, but I was always skeptical of that reasoning. I am much more convinced of this reason put forth.

The story I heard says it was moved to appease investors and Wall Street. The overwhelming success of The Dark Knight meant that WB company profits already exceeded analyst's expectations for 2008, so there was no need to rake in more millions that year. Instead they were worried that 2009 would turn out much worse, so they decided to move the certain blockbuster Half-Blood Prince into 2009 to improve this year's figures.

[Master Fetty]

I realized that movies four through six had the director and producer saying "we want to focus on the teenage hormones" That's not what the Harry Potter story is about - it's about good versus evil!

Are you sure about that? Harry Potter is as much about growing up as it is about fighting evil. You remember all the epic bits, but at its core it is about a guy growing up.

[Dalek Caan]

So, who was your favourite actor?

[fredjh]

Are you sure about that? Harry Potter is as much about growing up as it is about fighting evil. You remember all the epic bits, but at its core it is about a guy growing up.

Yes... in the books. In the movies (especially Half Blood Prince), they cut NONE of the relationship bits out, while actually adding some (shoelace scene, for example), while they cut out more than half of the memories that actually move the main plot of the story along.

I liked the movie, but 10 to 15 minutes more with memories would have done wonders for it.

[BigBenKenobi]

So, who was your favourite actor?

You must mean actress right...because Emma Watson is hot without a doubt . I mean really, you can't contest that she made the movie better in some respects.

[Flynn]

I thought it was....okay. There were some scenes I thought were just excellent, and I absolutely loved how they dealt with the Malfoy subplot. My main annoyance with the book was how much Harry focused on Malfoy, by the middle of the book it was just tiresome. The scenes in the movie with Malfoy were incredibly well done, and showed his desperation to succed and his continual frustration. However, there were a good deal of things I didn't like. I agree with what most people have said here, especially about the over-emphasis on the romance. HBP wasn't all about the relationships, and I think they could've been a lot more subtle with both romances.

I was also dissapointed with the lack of emphasis on the Half-Blood Prince. Many important moments were cut out or downplayed, such as Hermione's continual dissaproval and wariness of the book, which was almost forgotten in the movie. You also never saw levicorpus, as they had already foolishly used it in OotP, and they really glossed over sectumsempra. I'm sure people who haven't read the book would be extremely confused as to why Harry just basically stabbed someone repeatedly in the chest and got virtually no punishment.

There were also a lot of other things cut out that I didn't like. Firstly was the pointless Death Eater smokey-wispy thing they did whenever they apparated. I'll bet the money used for needless effects like that could've been put to more useful effects, like Dobby and Kreacher. I also noticed they never mentioned Greyback was a werewolf, which really lessoned the tension when he almost attacks Ginny. Speaking of which, I also have no idea what was up with the Burrow scene. It was pointless, not in the book, and a long sequence, which probably could've been put toward other scenes that were actually important. I was also dissapointed in the abscence of Rufus Scrimgeour, who was an important part in the book. I also didn't like the complete removal of Bill and Fleur, which means they'll have to cut that out in the secventh movie.

Speking of the seventh book, I want to know how on earth they will know which Horcruxes to look for when Harry wasn't shown the Hepzibah Smith memory and told that Riddle liked to collect trophies. That one memory was crucial toward them searching for the Horcruxes, how else would they know about the cup or the tiara?

So, overall, it was okay. The continual focus on the romance and the cut of vital scenes really brought it down for me, but there were some good scenes as well. I liked the portrayal of Slughorn and Mclaggen, and as I mentioned before, I thought the Malfoy scenes were really well done. So, I'd recommend it, but I honestly don't think you should see it unless you read the book.

[Cali]

Funny. A couple of my more nerdier friends asked me if I wanted to go see it with them. I was going to say yes, when I though that it would be better if I didn't, so as to not annoy them by asking whats that mean, and why are they doing this and such. I have honestly never seen any of the other movies or read any of the other books beside the first one. And that was a good 5 years ago. So I have to wonder, is it a worth while thing to rent the movies and buy the books? Or should I just add it to my mental list of things I should think about doing when I'm retired (provided we still have actual books when I'm about 70 or so.)?

[Flynn]

YES.


The Harry Potter series is one of the most well-written and enjoyable series I've read, and should definitely be picked up if you ever have the chance.

The movies, however, range from being terrific (Sorcerer's Stone, Chamber of Secrets, and OotP) to okay (Prizoner of Azkaban and HBP) to downright terrible (Goblet of Fire). Watching them is obviously not as important as reading the books, but they are enjoyable overall, so I'd say you should watch them if you're interested enough after reading the books.

[Zekk]

I also didn't like the complete removal of Bill and Fleur, which means they'll have to cut that out in the seventh movie.

Actually, Bill and Fleur will be in the Deathly Hallows movies, as will Rufus Scrimgeour (played by Bill Nighy). Here's the cast list and a nice picture of Bill and Fleur's Shell Cottage.

[fredjh]

Actually, Bill and Fleur will be in the Deathly Hallows movies, as will Rufus Scrimgeour (played by Bill Nighy). ...

Frankly, like a lot of things (it seems to me), they will simply go along without explaining anything. After all, explaining things is only to satisfy the "purists," anyway... why bother....

A few examples: why'd they bother having Tonks in this movie at all? She didn't find Harry on the train, they didn't have the sub-story of her relationship with Lupin; she served no purpose... she was in to try to appease the "purists." Same thing with Fenrir Greyback... did he even have a single line in the movie? What was the purpose? The Peruvian darkness powder... the fabricated a scene just so they could put it in the movie, since they cut out where it was actually used in the books...

They don't explain things, they just do it.

[Master Fetty]

Those sort of thing make the film feel part of a 'world', not just a little nook out of the way. GoF made that mistake - there was little sense of scale. Those little things you accept as they show that this story effects everyone.

[Zekk]

...they didn't have the sub-story of her relationship with Lupin; she served no purpose...

It wasn't really made clear, but at the Burrow she does call Lupin "sweetheart", so they sort of, but just barely, put it in there. I do miss some of the things they cut for the movies, and I really did for OoTP, but with this one, I really tried to look at it just as a movie. If they put in everything people wanted it would be too long, though they could have cut the action sequence at the Burrow and replaced it with more stuff that was actually in the book.

[bluemoose]

Well, first you have to remember this movie was supposed to come out in November of last year. But since Twilight came out they pushed it back.

Nah, wrong way around. Warner Brothers had had a really good year last year (Dark Knight, etal), but didn't have a block-buster summer release for 2009. Also, the Harry Potter movies have done better when released in the summer. So they slipped HP6 to this summer, to help fill a gap in their projected income. IIRC Paramount scheduled Twilight's release to take advantage of the gap left by HP6.

Ian

[fredjh]

...they didn't have the sub-story of her relationship with Lupin; she served no purpose...

It wasn't really made clear, but at the Burrow she does call Lupin "sweetheart", so they sort of, but just barely, put it in there.

Yes... that's my point... they randomly throw things in there to "appease" the book readers, like the gratuitously made up scene so that they could use Peruvian darkness powder... the fact that Lupin and Tonks had a relationship going...

That's what I'm saying... I like the books, and I want the movies to be closer to the books, but I'm not a purist... if they are going to cut something out, cut it out and be done with it. When Harry used the darkness powder, it was a WTF moment. When Luna found Harry, it was a WTF moment... but it wouldn't have been if they simply didn't have Tonks in the movie at all, because then it would have been like "Oh, they didn't want to call back this actress for 15 seconds in the movie." Same thing with Fenrir... I just don't understand why they bothered with that character if they weren't even going to have Lupin explain who he was.

Now my wife, who hasn't read the books, said she was disappointed at the end because she thought that's when it should have just been beginning... it was like a Seinfeld installment of Harry Potter... jus' dang old movie 'bout nuthin, man. (Said like Boomhauer on King of the Hill).

I still liked it, though... but I think it may be for the wrong reasons. It was funny, and I definitely like the character development (which I felt was lacking in Order of the Phoenix).

Since I'm here... yes, LEGO Company, I would buy more Harry Potter sets! Don't give me lame excuses, give me more Harry Potter sets!