PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter 5: The Order of the Phoenix



Lodat225
07-16-2007, 06:11 PM
So how 'bout that steaming pile of garbage?

Edit: No. I'm not going to give an explanation as to why I think it's a pile of garbage. Too troublesome.

German Andres
07-16-2007, 06:26 PM
I actually read it in english and I really liked it. But the movies.....shame is the least thing I can say about them.
i don`t know, I hate the books from 1 to 3. The fourth I liked it as well as the fifth. But i loved the 6! i know, it has nothing to do with the original plot (the one in the books from 1 to 3). But I liked it

Wolfbutter
07-16-2007, 06:32 PM
It was alright, but they left a lot of stuff out (some of it I;m actually glad they left out), and it was kinda boring. But it wasn't a "steaming pile of garbage". Another thing to note is that it was a different director from the other 4.

Oromis
07-16-2007, 06:44 PM
I heard the movie sucked bad.

Also heard the special effects kicked ass.

Might go see it sometime this weekend.

German Andres
07-16-2007, 06:51 PM
Man the cinema here is very expensive! That sucks! You can`t go to see a movie just to sit down and laugh and feel shame for the damned director! It`d be considered as a crime!
Sorry this one is out of topic- keep talking about the steaming pile of garbage

Betty
07-16-2007, 07:26 PM
I thought it was really good at the beginning, and then became more disappointed partially through. I think it's because you realize there are just too many loose ends in the plot.

I always really like the actors/characters though.

Apathy
07-16-2007, 07:34 PM
I've never read the books, but I went and saw the movie with my girlfriends entire family, and they all are fanatics about the books. Appearantly they think this one was the best one of the five, it stayed closest to the actual book and they liked how the director handled everything.

Without having read the book, I enjoyed it a lot still. I hated the third and fourth ones.

G.Y.X. Kid
07-16-2007, 08:21 PM
emma watson
fapfapfap

ninthlayer
07-16-2007, 10:01 PM
Lodat will rebel to anything, he's so counter-culture.

Ninty Man
07-16-2007, 10:23 PM
I really enjoyed... well... my parameter of pile of SHIT is Prisoner... is so boring, and Cuaron is such an ass... fuck, I hate that movie.

So... I think is not better that Goblet (that... in my opinion, is great, and maybe the best), but... is better that second, not better that first... the third will always be the worst

WebDudette
07-16-2007, 10:46 PM
I liked it. I think it could have been longer and they should have had some Quiditch but all in all it was pretty good.

Tizzalicious
07-16-2007, 11:41 PM
I actually really loved the movie. I like how it was done, and I think the actors were well-picked aswell. I wasn't disappointed in the slightest.

Marco
07-17-2007, 01:32 AM
I read the book in english and saw the movie too. Both were disappointing and boring. Half of the book was set in the classrooms where they just talked on and on, without all the adventures that made the previous books good.
I just apreciated how the director made a decent film out of that book.
The 6th is much better, but the first four are the best in my opinion.

Vera
07-17-2007, 01:51 AM
It was awesome. Fact.



I mean, all the previous HP movies have been like crapcrapcrappiness to varying degrees. And this was like the closest they got to an actual movie worth paying money for. I bow to this effort.

And yeah, it was the closest to the books and had actual scenes from the books and overall rocked.

wheelchairman
07-17-2007, 02:09 AM
I think it was about as close to the books as the other films, that's not a criteria for making it good. I was thoroughly entertained while watching.

Vera
07-17-2007, 02:35 AM
I think it was about as close to the books as the other films, that's not a criteria for making it good. I was thoroughly entertained while watching.

It is for the book fans. It made it feel like a genuine adaptation, not just something they made based on the books, but messed with the events of the plot so much it stops having the feel of the books.

The fact they kept it close to the books I think contributed a lot to it being a good movie. Plus I liked the occasionally gritty and dark feel of the movie combined with the big budget special effects.

Wolfbutter
07-17-2007, 04:51 AM
The problem is that the book wasn't really that great, it was incredibly slow moving, so they have to work with what they have to please fans. I wish they included more love scenes with Cho, or maybe even Jenny (I'm not sure when it started in the 5th or 6th book, though). However, the acting was great, especially Umbridge.

Also, when I watched the movie, some of the scenes were exactly as a pictured while reading the books. I didn't even realise I hadn't seen it before, which is good.

So, I think the director did a good job of making a somewhat boring book short and sweet.

Apathy
07-17-2007, 06:17 AM
Jenny? There is no Jenny.

ninthlayer
07-17-2007, 06:24 AM
BECUZ IT'S SPELD GINNY, ZOMG RITE?

Apathy really was a shitty username for you to choose.

Mannen som blev en gris
07-17-2007, 06:44 AM
I've read the book, don't remember what I thought about it, haven't seen the movie BUT:

emma watson
fapfapfap

wheelchairman
07-17-2007, 09:15 AM
It is for the book fans. It made it feel like a genuine adaptation, not just something they made based on the books, but messed with the events of the plot so much it stops having the feel of the books.

The fact they kept it close to the books I think contributed a lot to it being a good movie. Plus I liked the occasionally gritty and dark feel of the movie combined with the big budget special effects.

I just read the books and watched the films recently and I can say there was about as much discrepancies as the other films, I think the other films did as great a job of translating the book into movie format and timing. And I definitely prefer the newer films than the old, however I wouldn't say that I think they have the feel of the book in them. It's a personal issue I suppose.

Vera
07-17-2007, 10:47 AM
My approach to HP movies is from the perspective of a real HP book geek so yeah, I notice a lot of things like characterizations, how the characters seem in movies vs books and stuff like that rather annoys me.

In this film, though, I thought every character was very close to their book characterizations, in a very good way, and that's what I believe rocked so much about this movie.

That, and the fact the budget was handsomely spent on visuals.

RickyCrack
07-19-2007, 12:53 AM
This newest film is very stylistic which works best. All the actors played their roles to near perfection. It makes the magic seem more magical, whereas the other films made the wizard duels seem very -- pussy.

The magic seems much more darker and more specialized, whereas in the other movies it seemed like they just try to detect each others spells and whoever got the better first cast off became the victor. This movie definitely made it feel much more realistic [if magic were real.] And this movie really made Dumbledore seem like a total badass (he totally kicked voldemort's ass), which he should be, and the other films really failed on. Plus Luna Lovegood is strangely attractive so fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfa pfapfapfapfap.

Vera
07-19-2007, 05:26 AM
Plus Luna Lovegood is strangely attractive so fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfa pfapfapfapfap.

Best review of OOTP, ever.

Apathy
07-19-2007, 07:53 AM
Plus Luna Lovegood is strangely attractive so fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfa pfapfapfapfap.

I never understood the attraction to Hermoine. But this, I can agree with.

Thomas
07-19-2007, 08:34 AM
I didn't read this book. I read the first four and got bored with them. I actually walked into the movie theatre not excited about this movie in the least bit. I only went because my friends were going and I haven't seen them in a while.

I will admit, though, it wasn't bad. It wasn't that great, but it wasn't bad. I don't really see the whole appeal of Harry Potter. Yes, they are good books, and I used to really really like them, but then I turned 12.

I dunno. They still seem like children's books to me, even though the actors are getting older and the stories are getting darker.

I like my friend's commentary on the books. They should have progressed writing styles as we grew up (we are the same age as Harry). Like, before he was trying just to get good grades, but now it should be more grown up, like Ron gets addicted to Heroine and Hermione (strangely similar spelling, wow) should get an STD or something. THAT I would read.

Camilamazed
07-19-2007, 08:35 AM
For those who haven't read the books, it's okay. However for readers, that wasn't enough. There's a lot of stuff missing... I mean the ones who would really be great on screen..

:(

wheelchairman
07-19-2007, 09:23 AM
Wow Cami I disagree quite heartedly.

Ricky, I agree entirely on Dumbledore, this the first time he's been done right, and he's not just some feeble old man. But Luna..seriously? gross. Tonks man, Tonks. Or maybe Hermione (and definitely little Ginny Weasley... mmmhmmmmatureforherage)

wheelchairman
07-19-2007, 09:27 AM
I like my friend's commentary on the books. They should have progressed writing styles as we grew up (we are the same age as Harry). Like, before he was trying just to get good grades, but now it should be more grown up, like Ron gets addicted to Heroine and Hermione (strangely similar spelling, wow) should get an STD or something. THAT I would read.
Your friend is an idiot. No one wants to read social commentary set in a magical fantasy world for kids, and that drama bullshit make for the most boring literature ever.

These are kids books, if you can get over that and like them, good for you. If you can't, well oh well. But the people who say it' kids books always reminds me of those 10 year olds who refuse to be associated with anything childish.

Llamas
07-19-2007, 10:59 AM
I will admit, though, it wasn't bad. It wasn't that great, but it wasn't bad. I don't really see the whole appeal of Harry Potter. Yes, they are good books, and I used to really really like them, but then I turned 12. I dunno. They still seem like children's books to me, even though the actors are getting older and the stories are getting darker.

I never read them, just saw the movie, but I agree with this. I mean, I just think... Harry Potter is a fine kids book and movie series. I have no problem with people liking them, but the whole thing is how people treat it. I love movies like Toy Story, but I don't sit around and discuss the movie for hours or days. It's a kids movie. I have no problem with enjoying it and watching it sometimes, but it just seems a bit ridiculous to me for adults to be so into and involved with something made for children.

Tizzalicious
07-19-2007, 11:39 AM
I really don't think you can judge the hype around it without reading the books.

Sunny
07-19-2007, 11:46 AM
I never read them, just saw the movie, but I agree with this. I mean, I just think... Harry Potter is a fine kids book and movie series. I have no problem with people liking them, but the whole thing is how people treat it. I love movies like Toy Story, but I don't sit around and discuss the movie for hours or days. It's a kids movie. I have no problem with enjoying it and watching it sometimes, but it just seems a bit ridiculous to me for adults to be so into and involved with something made for children.

i agree, except i actually did try to read the books. rlyrly did. it just.. oh god... wasn't my thing. at all.

then again i don't get half the super-fandom-inspiring phenomena, so who knows.

Vera
07-19-2007, 11:50 AM
I really don't think you can judge the hype around it without reading the books.

Seconded. Love your usertitle, btw.

The books are clever, fun, light and tinglingly mysterious. The cast of characters is vast and charming. The language is imaginative and while nothing incredibly original, they're just books that have a certain, clearly universal, appeal.

They're children's books but I don't see many claiming they're not so why judge them as anything else.

Sunny
07-19-2007, 11:56 AM
i think what brianna is confused by is the HP fandom phenomenon (among grown adults), not by people just enjoying the books.

killer_queen
07-19-2007, 12:40 PM
I never read them, just saw the movie, but I agree with this. I mean, I just think... Harry Potter is a fine kids book and movie series. I have no problem with people liking them, but the whole thing is how people treat it. I love movies like Toy Story, but I don't sit around and discuss the movie for hours or days. It's a kids movie. I have no problem with enjoying it and watching it sometimes, but it just seems a bit ridiculous to me for adults to be so into and involved with something made for children.

Ugh, I hate this kind of attitude. What makes Harry Potter a kids book? What makes any other book a kids book? I'm not saying that it's for adults but I don't believe that HP books were written just for kids. When there's no sexuality, no violance in a book or a film people love to call it "for kids".

I know, you don't mind people enjoy it, what you find ridiculous is the fandom. I agree, the fans are ridiculous. Just like the 30-year-old women who happen to be Bridget Jones and Ally McBeal fans, Lost fans who never stops talking about their theories about the island. Fandom have always been a little ridiculous but it's got nothing to do with Harry Potter being a kids book.

Anyway, I don't want to brag but I guess, I have this wonderful, limitless imagination because the movies always disappoint me. I don't know who have found that stupid Daniel boy but I can't see talent in that boy. The only good thing about the movies are the wonderful British actors like Alan Rickman, Miranda Richardson and Ralph Fiennes.

Wolfbutter
07-19-2007, 01:27 PM
Just like with anything, if you haven't read the book, played the game, watched the show, then you wouldn't understand. The whole point of the movie is for the fans to have that stuff turned into a movie they can watch, and see all their favorite places, characters, and events into magical reality. If you haven't read the book, then the entire movies are very uninteresting, and it's not really worth going, in my opinion.

That's why I think Pokémon is such a good show. I remember seeing all my favorite characters and Pokemon and gym leaders represented perfectly. That's why a lot of people who haven't played Pokemon call it stupid; they wouldn't understand.

Sunny
07-19-2007, 01:51 PM
I know, you don't mind people enjoy it, what you find ridiculous is the fandom. I agree, the fans are ridiculous. Just like the 30-year-old women who happen to be Bridget Jones and Ally McBeal fans, Lost fans who never stops talking about their theories about the island. Fandom have always been a little ridiculous but it's got nothing to do with Harry Potter being a kids book.


the kid aspect is what makes crazy fandom a bit weirder. i can see why it's enjoyable for adults AND kids alike, but it IS a children's book. since you brought up Bridget Jones... it's like, if a grown woman obsesses over Jimmy Choos, it's kinda odd, but, yknow. she's the target demographic. but if a grown woman obsesses over My Little Ponies, it gets WEIRD. they are cute and can be enjoyed by adults too i'm sure, but uh.. yknow?

Wolfbutter
07-19-2007, 01:53 PM
Millions of adults read Harry Potter, and for some reason, I think My Little Ponies isn't really a good example to compare that too...It's too kiddish.

Interestingly enough, I find that most of the adults who read Harry Potter are women. I have never seen a male adult read Harry Potter.

Sunny
07-19-2007, 01:59 PM
i'm not talking about reading, i'm talking about obsessing over it.

Llamas
07-19-2007, 03:20 PM
the kid aspect is what makes crazy fandom a bit weirder. i can see why it's enjoyable for adults AND kids alike, but it IS a children's book. since you brought up Bridget Jones... it's like, if a grown woman obsesses over Jimmy Choos, it's kinda odd, but, yknow. she's the target demographic. but if a grown woman obsesses over My Little Ponies, it gets WEIRD. they are cute and can be enjoyed by adults too i'm sure, but uh.. yknow?

This is exactly what I mean.

So, if I've never played with My Little Ponies, I can't think it's weird for adults to be obsessed over them?

Wolfbutter
07-19-2007, 04:15 PM
Like I said, My Little Ponies are a totally different league from Harry Potter.

ZagmenO
07-19-2007, 04:18 PM
SHAME ON YOU!!! Now you watch my little pony. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DEcRtYLkt8)

Lodat225
07-19-2007, 05:17 PM
Plus Luna Lovegood is strangely attractive so fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfa pfapfapfapfap.

i thought i was the only one who thought this. so cute.


But Luna..seriously? gross. Tonks man, Tonks. Or maybe Hermione (and definitely little Ginny Weasley... mmmhmmmmatureforherage)

If Tonks is the woman with blue/purple hair that turned red - hell yeah.

Ginny Weasley is disgusting.

Thomas
07-19-2007, 05:33 PM
Your friend is an idiot. No one wants to read social commentary set in a magical fantasy world for kids, and that drama bullshit make for the most boring literature ever.

These are kids books, if you can get over that and like them, good for you. If you can't, well oh well. But the people who say it' kids books always reminds me of those 10 year olds who refuse to be associated with anything childish.

Yes, my friend is an idiot. He's been known to hump the wall in the band room on several occasions. But that's beside the point.

I posted that as a joke more than anything, but I do think the books should have matured at least a little bit since the first one. I guess the way they got much darker and scarier (sp?) did that. I dunno.

Llamas
07-19-2007, 07:56 PM
Like I said, My Little Ponies are a totally different league from Harry Potter.

But you're just deciding that you think that my little ponies are far more childish than harry potter (probably because the age group they are targeting is a few years younger than the one HP targets), and that that means it's okay for adults to be obsessed with the latter just because the target age is about 4 years older.

wheelchairman
07-19-2007, 10:38 PM
It's not okay to be obsessed over anything, except a fine cigar.

Betty
07-21-2007, 03:28 PM
1. The books have matured, a little.

2. I guess I can concede that they're children's books, but I'd rather label them "fantasy" above and beyond that. I don't see any reason that they shouldn't appeal to adults.

3. Sure the obsessiveness can be slightly annoying, but I totally understand it. I don't wait in line to buy the book or see the movie first thing it comes out. Or spend hours debating the finer intricacies of what's going to happen in the next novel. But I DO read the book in about 2-3 days as soon as I get it because it's so engaging. And I DO get really excited whenever I get to read a new one. For example, I wasn't particularly excited about this one until one night I had a DREAM about Harry Potter and I woke up in the morning and I was SO SO excited for the new book to come out. It's like a new CD by my favourite band coming out and taking it home and listening to it for hours on end. And how I wish I could share the experience with others. But with HP, a lot of people take it home and cherish it for a few days/weeks and that's kind of awesome.

WebDudette
07-21-2007, 03:48 PM
Obsession with anything is weird and wrong, at any age.

I've read the first four this week, I want to re-read them all before I get the latest one. I haven't read the sixth one at all yet so I am looking forward to that.

After re-reading the fourth book I realize how much is left out as compared to the first three. I wonder if I will notice the same thing with the fifth, it's been years since I've read that one as well.

WebDudette
07-22-2007, 01:10 AM
Right, so I've seen the 5th movie twice since it came out and now I really don't want to re-read the book. Am I going to miss anything if I just skip to the 6th one?

wheelchairman
07-22-2007, 06:46 AM
Right, so I've seen the 5th movie twice since it came out and now I really don't want to re-read the book. Am I going to miss anything if I just skip to the 6th one?

YES YOU WILL: A WHOLE FUCKING LOT.