Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Xav**

Ha, if id wanna see a hulk zooming around with a jetpack, id go see a film about the hulk zooming around with a jetpack.

I not only critised the difference's from the book to the movie, i also critised the poor acting as well as the poor lighting in some scene's which ruined it.

What im saying is that destroying the plot line of the 6th film, hasnt done The Harry Potter series justice, now i enjoyed the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th film, cause they generaly stuck to the storyline, and made small adaptions when need. (For example the battle against the basilsk in the 2nd film was alot longer then it was in the book, i understand this)

Even if they do make an 8th film, it is still going to be very hard to stick in the information about Voldemort that Dumbledore told Harry on those lessons, for example that Voldemort likes collecting trophies as well as historical artifacts, so the horcruxs will be something that once belonged to a Hogwarts founder and the history surrounding Voldemorts mother and the Gaunts ring, and how would he know that the Guants ring had the Peverell coat of arms on it, which he saw in an memory and can not obtain into the end of the book/film, when he goes to face Voldemort.

It destroys the chance of people understanding and liking a good story, cheating them out of there right to know Harry Potter cause of some stupid hollywood director.

I got a bit dramatic at the end there lol.

**GoFenris**

Kilkrazy wrote:A book can take a whole page to explain the appearance of a scene which a movie can do in a six second panning shot.

However a book easily lets you into the thoughts of a character which always work really badly done on screen, (voice/over, for instance.)

Exactly! I do think some exceptionally talented filmmakers (Writer/Director) do a fantastic job of getting inside a characters head but sadly, they are usually not adapting another's written work (novel not screen-play). I'm sure some have but none come to mind off the top of my head.

Xav wrote:...It destroys the chance of people understanding and liking a good story, cheating them out of there right to know Harry Potter cause of some stupid hollywood director....

Yeah, that is the pain I feel regarding people that don't want to read LoTR. It comes from a desire to share with others but in truth, person A will NOT see things the same exact way as person B,C,D or E. I guess we have to take comfort in the fact that they were exposed to the material at all, even if its a relatively inferior version.

Sarcasm and "pain" aside and restating, I do, for the most part, actually enjoy the Harry Potter films and LoTR on the whole but I do feel frustration regarding them. It is just out of our control so I try to make the best of it and take them as companion pieces to the original work.

**garret**

I didnt like the harry potter books They were too boring and not that well written.

**Ahtman**

Xav wrote:It destroys the chance of people understanding and liking a good story, cheating them out of there right to know Harry Potter cause of some stupid hollywood director.

Many people do understand and like a good story, and they have the sales figures to prove it. They don't feel cheated at all and many of them that have read the books still enjoyed the movie. The people I have talked to that are fans of the books have enjoyed the new movie. People who haven't read the books are enjoying the movie. Critics have been very kind to it as well. The problem isn't the movie being poor storytelling, the problem is you wanting it to be a very specific thing that it cannot be nor would have ever been. As much as you say you understand a book and movie can't be the same your argument is still that the movie and the book aren't the same thing.

**GoFenris**

garret wrote:I didnt like the harry potter books They were too boring and not that well written.

I dunno, it is kind of a mixed issue for me but I do enjoy the books. It's kind of like Lovecraft. From a technical standpoint neither are great examples of literature. As story telling devices, they both have something that makes them appealing. In Lovecraft's case, he was a 'crappy' pulp writer that has influenced all sorts of writers and artists through the years and his writings are regularly published in various collections to this day. In J.K. Rowling's case, well, you can't argue with the amount of fans she has.

Maybe I'm beating this to death but this particular point (literary skill vs. story telling appeal) is intriguing to me as a writer. Although I try to strike a balance between the two in my own work, it is really more about developing a style. I guess (as with any potential artists) history will judge. Don't misunderstand though, you have to admire the life she made for herself from writing and I would hope/wish/dream to make a tenth of the money from publishing that Rowling has.

**garret**

Or for me i kinda hate anything fantasy.
Thats why i got soul calibur 4 so i can have sci-fi chracters beating up fantasy.

**Cheese Elemental**

Sounds like you never even bothered giving fantasy a chance.

Sci-Fi is all you see nowadays, and it's getting dull.

**Xav**

Cheese Elemental wrote:Sounds like you never even bothered giving fantasy a chance.

Sci-Fi is all you see nowadays, and it's getting dull.

I have to agree there fantasy is pretty awesome, and great in films.

Im not going to argue with you, i understand films and movies aint the same, but i think there should be some resemblence to the book.
I dont see how some of the Horcruxes are going to be found now, as he would have no way of obtaining those memorys on his own.

What do you think GoFenris, anyway harry could get the information without those memory's?

**Shamfrit**

The Pensieve, for one. (Can't remember how to spell it).

The Time Turner (although that would be too easy).

**GoFenris**

Dumbledore's Will maybe. He already leaves them all stuff, it would be easy to add in a few more details or worse the dreaded deus ex machina device known as the "Horcrux Detector" (Although I really hope they don't go this route).

I imagine that getting the old Horcrux's and some of the Pensieve memories will at least give Hermione enough to start to figure it all out as well as speed the story up a bit, expecially if it skips the Ministries intrusions into the items.

'Flashbacks' the viewer hasn't seen before also wouldn't surprise me.

Time Turner: Yeah, I'd time turn back to Voldemort at the sea cave as a kid and have him meet the accident instead of the other kids. But it has been already suggested that if the event already happened, you can't change it as everything in HPPoA happened it was just that there existed another layer the reader was not privy to until later. Of course speculating about metaphysics and how they fit into a fantasy story is a bit silly to begin with.

Although it is a guilty pleasure to speculate on such things (How logic fits into the illogical).

**dogma**

GoFenris wrote:
And believe it or not, while the problems that filmmakers face adapting a written work are not just "Hollywood" problems, please don't believe for a moment that "Hollywood" does not dumb things down. Because they absolutely do and they admit it.

You know why they dumb things down? Because, as difficult as it may be to believe, not everyone wants their cinema to be the Everest of intellectual pursuit. And, realistically, it shouldn't be. Movies are not designed to be a medium for the provocation of profound thought. The format simply does not allow for the kind of detail necessary in such matters. Sure you can debate the nuances of camera work vis a vis the crafting of an emotive state in the audience, but that isn't something which fundamentally questions intellectual convictions. Unless your intellectual convictions pertain to the aesthetics of camera work, which would just be silly.

Either way, the phrase "Hollywood dumbed down Harry Potter" is an oxymoron. Harry Potter was a series of books written for children and teens; it was never high art, or even remotely significant outside of its widespread cultural appeal. Pretty much the definition of pop literature.

**GoFenris**

dogma wrote:
GoFenris wrote:
And believe it or not, while the problems that filmmakers face adapting a written work are not just "Hollywood" problems, please don't believe for a moment that "Hollywood" does not dumb things down. Because they absolutely do and they admit it.

You know why they dumb things down? Because, as difficult as it may be to believe, not everyone wants their cinema to be the Everest of intellectual pursuit. And, realistically, it shouldn't be. Movies are not designed to be a medium for the provocation of profound thought. The format simply does not allow for the kind of detail necessary in such matters. Sure you can debate the nuances of camera work vis a vis the crafting of an emotive state in the audience, but that isn't something which fundamentally questions intellectual convictions. Unless your intellectual convictions pertain to the aesthetics of camera work, which would just be silly.

Either way, the phrase "Hollywood dumbed down Harry Potter is an oxymoron". Harry Potter was a series of books written for children and teens; it was never high art, or even remotely significant outside of its widespread cultural appeal. Pretty much the definition of pop literature.

Yes, I actually do agree with almost all of this but it is also (and I would argue primarily) to appeal to the widest possible audience (i.e. make the most money). It is simply a frustration with me that they would even dumb down something like Harry Potter, which they have. That is, I thought, my point. Although it is scattered among more than one post.

dogma wrote:Sure you can debate the nuances of camera work vis a vis the crafting of an emotive state in the audience, but that isn't something which fundamentally questions intellectual convictions. Unless your intellectual convictions pertain to the aesthetics of camera work, which would just be silly.

This is awesome! I almost want to put this in a signature! Thanks!

**Xav**

Well harry might steal the memorys but alot of the gaps in voldemorts history, Dumbledore worked out, i can only see Hermione working that stuff out, well it might work but id still rather see it in the Half blood Prince.

Oh well i still say the Half Blood Prince was badly done, and could have been alot better.

**GoFenris**

Ah, if Snape is utilized more as someone that actively (albeit secretly) helps Harry and Co. Another Deus ex Machina sure, but not nearly as cheesy and blatant as a horcrux detector.

It is what it is, now. I don't think we'll see a 'director's cut' ala Peter Jackson on these movies.

**Crazy_Carnifex**

I found the movie very good. One of, if not the, best yet. It really lacked the "Shohorned" feel of the last two, takeing the narrowest core of the book and adding it's own style, makeing it stand alone. The Book had Numerous Sub-Plots that ate up a lot of time. They Trimed those away, and added some fun details that make the movie a seperate entity. Unlike the 3rd (The last one they tried this in), they maintained a "Feel" that the book had.

The Next Movie will probably hold a lot of plot essential details that were ommited from this movie. Harry will recieve an "In case of my death" package of Memories from Dumbeldore.

**efarrer**

Xav wrote:When can i start ok, they cut out some very imprtant lessons, with Dumbledore, which were very very imprtant for the next film, the director seems to think wizards dont need to say spells to cast them, or move there wands!

When malfoy was duelling Harry, they were shooting white light at each other, was it meant to be a disarming spell? achualy they were meant to be stupifying each other, which is a red light, and the killing curse whic Dumbledore was the wrong colour.

The fake Horcrux locket, looked completely wrong, the battle scene's were too dark, and the happy scene's were too light.

The burrow does not get destroyed, now i understand the need to show the constant danger to harry, but why destroy something as important as the Burrow?

Slughorn was played brilliantly but Ginny Weasly was played horribly, the director seemed to think Ginny was still nervous and quieit like she was in the 2nd and 3rd book, cant say Harry was played brilliantly, but Ron was played very well, and i realy liked the way he was played.

i HATED the actor playing Tom Riddle, i mean it completely contriditing the 2nd movie, where he looked completely different!
He looked too snake-like, he meant to be a tall, handsome and charming, and he comes across as rather cold.

Very bad film, the only good parts were when Ron ate the love potion, and that was meant to happen on his Birthday anyway.
And when the hand of the Inferno came out of the water and grabbed Harrys ankle, made me and the whole cinema jump, and I was expecting it, Overall terrible, with great difficulty are they going to make Deathly Hollows, now.

Point one- They don't need to speak to cast. It's a pretty important part of the books that Harry has trouble with.
Point two- Meh
Point three Meh.
Point 4- Agreed. The destruction of the brrow was point less, should have been used for the fight at the end of the movie, which was missing.
Point 5- Eh.
Point 5 meh.

**Nailz94**

HBP looks crap. It really does. Actually I'm quite glad that Dumbeldore dies. Good Riddance.

**NeedsMoreDakka**

Yeah i saw the half blood prince because i figured it would be entertaining. I was really trying to decide whether it would be more entertaining to give myself a root canal with my soda straw or try and keep watching the movie. Then i was going to have to choke everyone in the theater because they thought every moment of silence was histericle and i thought i was the only one "not getting it" until i saw the person next to me counting ceiling tiles and the one behind him catching some Z's