HP3 to be shortest

[jpdill]

Looks like HP3 will be the shortest.

www.comingsoon.net

That's a shame - but i expect really good tho. still.

[LS2002]

I doubt thats going to be the Offical Running time. I remember when Chamber was rumored as 2 hours and 20 min when it came to be 2 hours and 48 min!

[UnicornBlood3]

Just as long as they cover everything that they should..I'll be fine..

[Juxton]

My only concern is that this may signal a move away from adapting a lot of what's in the books like Chris Columbus did. I know some people don't like the way he did that, but I enjoyed seeing small things from the books that wouldn't have made it into most movies. Rowling liked that to, and I remember reading that was one of her concerns when Columbus decided not to direct anymore.

Oh well. LOTR proved you can have a good and rather faithful adaptation of a book without going Chris Columbus with it. Then again, we get the EEs that do that.

[Trelaw-Knee]

It being minutes shorter than the other two is nothing to be worried about.
I mean in PoA all major things happen before before christmas, (halloween break in, quidditch match, buckbeak.) Put a few plots in for the spring and summer.
Then I'm hoping for a really long part showing the events of the day of the shreiking shack.

[jpdill]

It may disturb you to know, but as i've said before, this isn't exactly an honest adaption.

The director has taken the basic plot of the book, but re-imagined it for cinema. This movie is a modern re-vamp of the existing book, if you get what i mean...

Essentially the same happens, but in the movie, it's more up-to-date.

It's not like the LOTR movies, which are very true to the movie. From what i saw, PoA isn't as true to the book.

It's quite like having LOTR's dialogue modernised - it's the same story but very different to the book.

Expect HP4 to follow suit - according to sources, Warner and JK Rowling as very impressed by the movie, and would prefer the movie to remain modern and up to date.

[jpdill]

It's also alot sexed up - you start noticing Hermione has breasts.

[Sparkle~Girl]

:rolleyes:

[Mobycat]

Then it is an honest adaptation, isn't it? If it takes the story line and keeps that close, why wouldn't it be?

As far as the "modern" take...the book is supposed to be taking place in the current day...so I don't see what is wrong with that (does not Harry mention Dudley's video game and such?).

Hermione...well, she IS hitting that age, after all. Reminds me of the stories of Annette from Mickey Mouse Club (no, I wasn't born then). Nothing wrong with that. Just because it doesn't say she has them in the book doesn't mean she doesn't want to show herself off, after all.

And I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean, but jp, I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone who has only done work-study (I assume that's the equivalent of what you did on the last one) has seen any real cuts that have been done.

[moviegeek]

hmm.....i know someone who will go just to see her.

[JustAnAlias]

Can it really be the shortest?

[disneynut04]

It's rumored to be 2.5 hours long, but also rumored to be the best film of the series. I can't wait and it will be so good...i'm sure they won't leave out anything of importance!

[jpdill]

Originally posted by Mobycat
And I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean, but jp, I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone who has only done work-study (I assume that's the equivalent of what you did on the last one) has seen any real cuts that have been done.

While i was on there, i was required to be a student - i saw both Emma Watson and Dan Radcliffe while filming in Shepperton.

As a perversed tennager, i looked at Emma to see if she had any breats at all, or if she was flat-chested.

When i say modern revamp, i mean this:

Book 3 is set in 1993, but it doesn't really show.

Movie 4 is set in 2003, and it does show, as they have up-to-date technology and stuff. Movie 3 doesn't have that traditional feel to it like the books and first two films had - it feels modern and up-to-date, and completely the opposite of what LOTR was like.

I can give judgement, as i've seen how the actors speak, how the react, what they wear, etc.

[ultspidey]

ok, first the movie isn't done yet, it probably isn't even to the point of editing yet, I'd be willing to bet right now SFX work is what's being done. There's still another 5 or 6 months until the movie's out, many directors are rushing to get the print out in time for the release date, so any talk about running time is nuts, the running time shown is probably what WB wants it to be.

As for making the story more modern, the story's already modern. Making a comparasion between LOTR and Harry Potter in terms of a timeframe is ridiculous, LOTR is clearly "set" in a medival time like enivoriment, Harry Potter always been set in the modern day. The dialouge is completely modern with a wizard twist as well as the look and feel. How can you revamp a book written no more than 5 years ago?

Finally, the whole "horomones" thing is really getting annoying, yes the kids are growing up, we all know this, stop beating a dead horse. By Book 4 they're starting to date, all that talk about the kids being teenagers now just seems like a useless ploy for publicity. Book 3 is where things really kick into high gear and IMO the best book of the series. If the story is told right (the mood/tone looks right already) it'll be a great movie, give the "horomone" talk a rest.

[B-Knowledge]

Certain things are being left out from the book in order to move the story along better. A good movie usually has a steady pace makes every scene important to the story overall. MAybe certain things in the POA book, while exciting and interesting, didn't move the main story foward. I think Alfonso Cuaron is a great director, especialy with fantasy and imagery. He did "The Little Princess" and I think he'll provide a fresh look for the Harry Potter series. Sometimes less is more.

[Chade]

As long as he doesn't do what C.C. did to the first movie, all will be fine. I made 5 of my mates go with me to see it and spent half an hour afterwards filling in the blanks for them... They expected us to have read the books, but not be annoyed at all the points that were left out or changed!?!:nono:

I freaked when I heard this was going to be the shortest film yet, but you all make good points. Just have to wait and see I suppose...

[redman]

im sick of everyone wanting every little scene from the book in the movie. COS suffered from this. it was far too long.

im glad its 2 1/2 hrs.

[moviegeek]

what parts don't need to be in the movie

[sean_mc3]

personally, if you are wanting an honest and faithful representation of the book to be adapted to film, the film has to be longer that Chamber of Secrets by about 10 or 15 mins and hit the 3 hour mark just, otherwise a lot of people could end up disappointed, but then again, if Cuaron has put his 'spin' on the film and it turns out as good if not better than the last 2 films, I wouldn't mind if it indeed turned out to be the shortest

[MagsXGill29]

I hope it's not too short. Short movies never seem to be that good, cause they never have time to show everything like they should. Lets hope they didn't take out some good scenes.
I'm still afarid to see what the Jack in the Box picture has to do with this movie. I don't remember a jack in the box in the book

[Rizor]

Well, if the running time fits, then I'm fine with it!

[JustAnAlias]

A "short" version of PoA will still be very long. Sometimes short movies are good though.

[redman]

its 2 anda 1/2 hours long! thats not a short movie.

[Angelixx]

Originally posted by redman
its 2 anda 1/2 hours long! thats not a short movie.

:eek: no kidding wasnt that the size of the first one???? I mean wasnt everybody saying then WOW this movie is soooooo long hey the third book is only a couple hundred pages longer that the second and first right??? its not too bad and most of the plot stuff happens at the end anyway so I guess we can live with it besides we still have J.K. watching over it all and she hasn't failed us yet **does salute to picture of J.K. that I dont really have Im just pretending***dont bother wasting your energy typing it I know Im an idiot:p :grin:

[redman]

personally, if they had the best director for harry potter then i wouldnt mind watching a 3 hour HP movie. however, ive found SS and COS to be pretty boring because of their length. Chris Columbus just cant keep my attention going for that long. Hopefully with Cuaron cutting down the length a bit, he'll be able to get in the important events and information. thats all u need. u dont need every little scene from the book. thats how SS and COS felt.

[Angelixx]

thats so true and in PS and CoS it felt like there wasnt really any depth. Like they were just showing one scene right after the other, it felt like it wasnt even going anywhere.

[JustAnAlias]

Exactly but that's because we knew where the story was going. More emphasis was put on getting details right that developing the characters or plot.

[Angelixx]

Originally posted by JustAnAlias
Exactly but that's because we knew where the story was going. More emphasis was put on getting details right that developing the characters or plot.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

[JustAnAlias]

Thank you. Those movies <i>were</i> enjoyable but they just didn't effect me emotionally at all.

[Angelixx]

Same here but I will gladly admit that at the end of PS i cried because I didnt want the whole experience of waiting and anticipating and then finally seeing the movie to end. I didnt want the rush to be over lol.

[moviegeek]

i think we'll get more of a rush in the third movie. you know, when harry first sees sirius and all

[redman]

im just hoping for a bit more excitement and a little less emphasis on converting every scene to film.