Lastest Harry Potter Film Pushed Back into Summer 2009

[Elbren]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=48001 Booooooo :confused: :(

Basically, they feel that, with the past writers strike, the summer movies next year will be pretty weak and they think Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will make even more money against a weak summer line-up ... so a little over 3 months from release, they move the movie back to July of 2009. :(

[Elbren]

Seriously .. no comments on this? :confused:

This really bummed me out. Between this movie being moved back almost a year and the Watchmen lawsuit, it's like movie companies are looking for reasons to keep me (and my money) out of theatres. :mad:

[square634]

Seriously .. no comments on this? :confused:

This really bummed me out. Between this movie being moved back almost a year and the Watchmen lawsuit, it's like movie companies are looking for reasons to keep me (and my money) out of theatres. :mad:

The Harry Potter movies are pretty awful. It makes sense for them to try to get them out there when there's no competition. Plus, I'm sure they want to draw out the Harry Potter brand for as long as possible.

[Objectivity]

Seriously .. no comments on this? :confused:

Well, the news is about three weeks old so I think anyone who was upset is probably over it by now.

Does it suck? Yes. But in hindsight, they've known they were going to do this for months now, they just didn't tell anyone. That explains the trailer delay.

Plus, since they're not delaying the filming of the final two movies, it means they'll come much closer together than they ordinarily would.

[TommyD4207]

I know you didn't mean to say "lastest" but it's actually only the 3rd last (not saying you didn't necessarily know this.

Personally, I think it's really cool that they're making two movies for Book 7.

[Lt Melmo]

I know you didn't mean to say "lastest" but it's actually only the 3rd last (not saying you didn't necessarily know this.

Personally, I think it's really cool that they're making two movies for Book 7.
I was angry they didn't do the same thing for GoF. Or they should've at least added another 45 or so minutes.

The only reason these movies can be so bad is because of WB's time limit. Also because Chris Columbus isn't a very good director and Kloves isn't a very good writer. But mostly the time limit.

[Objectivity]

I was angry they didn't do the same thing for GoF. Or they should've at least added another 45 or so minutes.

The only reason these movies can be so bad is because of WB's time limit. Also because Chris Columbus isn't a very good director and Kloves isn't a very good writer. But mostly the time limit.

I think Kloves is doing exceptionally well. He gets knocked because of the first two movies being exactly like the books, but it's a no-win situation for him. If he changed too much people would have said, "Why do they always mess with the books."

Also, he was hamstrung by a director whose films have no depth and books that, let's face it, are much simpler in structure and plot than the latter half of the series.

Look at some of his other work like Wonder Boys. He's good at taking complex things and streamlining them.

A screenwriter who adapts books to film (or stage, etc.) has to find a way to keep the flavor of the book without being held hostage to it or discarding it totally. When sucessful, people walk out of the movie thinking it was just like the book even if it was 50% different.

That's one of the reasons why I didn't mind OOTP. The movie plays like a cliff notes version of the book, but as a movie it works and is accessible to fans and non-fans.

The other thing to realize is that no director or writer or actor has ever changed a single word in a novel. The book is still there as you remember it.

Out of curiosity, what are some of the omissions from the books that lead you to believe that he's not a good writer? There are things that have been removed that really didn't work for film - Heromine and the house elves and Bill for example. Off the top of my head (and I'm sure there are others) the only major omission I can think of that could have easily been included is the origins of the Marauder's Map.

[JTrea81]

Transformers 2 (June 26) will crush Harry Potter...

[ChaosLex]

Transformers 2 (June 26) will crush Harry Potter...

Stupid muggle. I'm going to Avada Kedavra your ass. ;):D

[square634]

I think Kloves is doing exceptionally well. He gets knocked because of the first two movies being exactly like the books, but it's a no-win situation for him. If he changed too much people would have said, "Why do they always mess with the books."

Also, he was hamstrung by a director whose films have no depth and books that, let's face it, are much simpler in structure and plot than the latter half of the series.

Look at some of his other work like Wonder Boys. He's good at taking complex things and streamlining them.

A screenwriter who adapts books to film (or stage, etc.) has to find a way to keep the flavor of the book without being held hostage to it or discarding it totally. When sucessful, people walk out of the movie thinking it was just like the book even if it was 50% different.

That's one of the reasons why I didn't mind OOTP. The movie plays like a cliff notes version of the book, but as a movie it works and is accessible to fans and non-fans.

The other thing to realize is that no director or writer or actor has ever changed a single word in a novel. The book is still there as you remember it.

Out of curiosity, what are some of the omissions from the books that lead you to believe that he's not a good writer? There are things that have been removed that really didn't work for film - Heromine and the house elves and Bill for example. Off the top of my head (and I'm sure there are others) the only major omission I can think of that could have easily been included is the origins of the Marauder's Map.

I think OOTP and POA were the worst two. And it's not just about the changes because I liked GOF the best so far, even though it has some pretty significant (and IMO appropriate) changes.

The fifth movie changed some stuff from the book, which, for the most part, was fine. For example, having Cho betray the DA makes sense for a movie adaptation. There were several terrible things about it, though. For one, the movie, standing alone, was impossible to understand. Of people I have talked to who saw the movie but have not read the book, none of them actually understood some of the plot points that were happening, even though they liked the movie. Snape's worst memory? Horrendous. Arthur Weasley being attacked? Basically incomprehensible, while at the same time losing Harry's guilt over the situation. And lastly, Kreacher didn't betray them in the fifth book, which is just stupid. It would have taken two minutes to do, and the fifth movie was the shortest while the book was the longest.

POA was just horrendous and lost the point of the entire book. As you mention, the Marauder's Map and Harry's parents' history was entirely lost, which was kind of the whole idea and made the movie not make sense. I must admit that I was most disappointed in that one because it was my favorite book in the series.

I think the 6th book is the most natural for a movie adaptation, so I think this one could be pretty decent. In retrospect I think it was one of the weaker books of the series though.

[Lt Melmo]

I think Kloves is doing exceptionally well. He gets knocked because of the first two movies being exactly like the books, but it's a no-win situation for him. If he changed too much people would have said, "Why do they always mess with the books."

Also, he was hamstrung by a director whose films have no depth and books that, let's face it, are much simpler in structure and plot than the latter half of the series.

Look at some of his other work like Wonder Boys. He's good at taking complex things and streamlining them.

A screenwriter who adapts books to film (or stage, etc.) has to find a way to keep the flavor of the book without being held hostage to it or discarding it totally. When sucessful, people walk out of the movie thinking it was just like the book even if it was 50% different.

That's one of the reasons why I didn't mind OOTP. The movie plays like a cliff notes version of the book, but as a movie it works and is accessible to fans and non-fans.

The other thing to realize is that no director or writer or actor has ever changed a single word in a novel. The book is still there as you remember it.

Out of curiosity, what are some of the omissions from the books that lead you to believe that he's not a good writer? There are things that have been removed that really didn't work for film - Heromine and the house elves and Bill for example. Off the top of my head (and I'm sure there are others) the only major omission I can think of that could have easily been included is the origins of the Marauder's Map.
Perhaps I'm a bit hard on Kloves. The main problem IS the time limit the movies have. I found the writing in the first two films fine. I suppose I just find him synonymous with the cutting up of the books.

And please trust me when I say I'm not a freakish purist who thinks that everything in the books has to transfer. By far, the only movie in the series that has been a good standalone movie was Prisoner, and that was where the adapting started to mess with things. That movie succeeded so beautifully (it's seriously the film that got me into the HP series at all) because it was directed by one of the best directors making films right now. He made it a simply great film. The one bone to pick was the fact that the Marauder's Map and the stag patronus weren't explained in the end, but I don't think that has much to do with the overall quality of the film as a piece of art that exists separately from the novel.

The first two films... well, I'll quote Terry Gilliam:

Chris Columbus' versions are terrible. Just dull. Pedestrian.
The movies would've been great with Gilliam at the helm.

And by far, the absolute worst HP film yet is Goblet... and it's a decently-directed flick, it has a personality, so naturally, I blamed the writer. Again, it has to do with the time limit. When I watch the films, I watch them as a new viewer, I try to leave my biases at the door. When I was watching GoF, I couldn't stop asking what the hell was going on. I'm sure that if Kloves was given another 45 minutes to work with, or had the film been broke up into two, it would've been great. But the way it is? The film is a mess. I'm fine with them leaving out SPEW, even though I loved it. I'm fine with some of the omissions. The problem is what they chose to keep. Rita Skeeter shows up for about five minutes and doesn't figure at all into the plot. Characters are introduced by the milli-second, and the beginning of the book was full of enough confusion already. The entire goal of the movie was basically "let's just show all of these characters and things and not actually tie them together because everyone watching has already read the book." It was a companion piece to the book, and Cuaron had already proved that the movies can stand on their own. So, 45 minutes didn't need to be added so we can see the omissions, they just needed to be there to actually develop all the crap they DID stick in.

With OOTP, it was kind of the opposite. Of course, Kloves wasn't writing. The film itself seemed comprehensible but it was still too cut up, they omitted so many little things that didn't need to be omitted, as square seems to be implying. Goldenberg kept the bare bones but it didn't have any of the spirit of the HP universe. I was really looking forward to seeing Ron trying to mount a thestral... why take that out? They certainly had room for it. Why not spend another two minutes allowing for Snape's worst memory to actually be comprehensible? Why not spend a few more minutes to have Kreacher betray Sirius? Why not have the scene at St. Mungo's, one of the most emotional scenes in the series? Oh, because they didn't want to build a new set. Must be hard to get proper funding for a damn Harry Potter flick. All of this could've been done with 25 more minutes, which would match the running time of Chamber of Secrets.

[The Wedge]

What's even more infuriating about the OOTP omissions and running time is that the director, whose name escapes me at the moment (Yates?) actually declared that he wanted it to be the shortest movie of the 5 made...even though it had a lot of content, and I do believe was the longest book. He was going to cut Kreacher out entirely until Rowling told him that this would make future movies a cluster*youknowwhat* and you needed to at least be introduced to him.

You know what else was missing which will have to be forced in to 6? The locket they found, but couldn't open, at Grimmauld Place while helping to clean. Kind of important to the plot of 7. It's bad enough that Deathly Hallows itself has a lot of Deus ex Machina devices, but if they don't find a way to fit it in now, the locket will be one, too.

And I agree, I can NOT believe Rowling let them put Snapes Worst Memory on the screen in that form. Without him calling Lily a mudblood at the end, it loses ALL the meaning later on, all it serves now is to put doubt in Harry's mind about how "good" his father was so he doubts how good he is. But ultimately, that's not the POINT of Snapes Worst Memory!

[Tank]

Yeah, this was announced a while ago. I've never gotten into the movies, even though I've read and loved all the books. I can certainly understand people being upset about this, especially Entertainment Weekly. The delay was announced on the day their fall movie preview came out... with the new Harry Potter movie on the cover.

[square634]

Perhaps I'm a bit hard on Kloves. The main problem IS the time limit the movies have. I found the writing in the first two films fine. I suppose I just find him synonymous with the cutting up of the books.

And please trust me when I say I'm not a freakish purist who thinks that everything in the books has to transfer. By far, the only movie in the series that has been a good standalone movie was Prisoner, and that was where the adapting started to mess with things. That movie succeeded so beautifully (it's seriously the film that got me into the HP series at all) because it was directed by one of the best directors making films right now. He made it a simply great film. The one bone to pick was the fact that the Marauder's Map and the stag patronus weren't explained in the end, but I don't think that has much to do with the overall quality of the film as a piece of art that exists separately from the novel.

The first two films... well, I'll quote Terry Gilliam:

The movies would've been great with Gilliam at the helm.

And by far, the absolute worst HP film yet is Goblet... and it's a decently-directed flick, it has a personality, so naturally, I blamed the writer. Again, it has to do with the time limit. When I watch the films, I watch them as a new viewer, I try to leave my biases at the door. When I was watching GoF, I couldn't stop asking what the hell was going on. I'm sure that if Kloves was given another 45 minutes to work with, or had the film been broke up into two, it would've been great. But the way it is? The film is a mess. I'm fine with them leaving out SPEW, even though I loved it. I'm fine with some of the omissions. The problem is what they chose to keep. Rita Skeeter shows up for about five minutes and doesn't figure at all into the plot. Characters are introduced by the milli-second, and the beginning of the book was full of enough confusion already. The entire goal of the movie was basically "let's just show all of these characters and things and not actually tie them together because everyone watching has already read the book." It was a companion piece to the book, and Cuaron had already proved that the movies can stand on their own. So, 45 minutes didn't need to be added so we can see the omissions, they just needed to be there to actually develop all the crap they DID stick in.

With OOTP, it was kind of the opposite. Of course, Kloves wasn't writing. The film itself seemed comprehensible but it was still too cut up, they omitted so many little things that didn't need to be omitted, as square seems to be implying. Goldenberg kept the bare bones but it didn't have any of the spirit of the HP universe. I was really looking forward to seeing Ron trying to mount a thestral... why take that out? They certainly had room for it. Why not spend another two minutes allowing for Snape's worst memory to actually be comprehensible? Why not spend a few more minutes to have Kreacher betray Sirius? Why not have the scene at St. Mungo's, one of the most emotional scenes in the series? Oh, because they didn't want to build a new set. Must be hard to get proper funding for a damn Harry Potter flick. All of this could've been done with 25 more minutes, which would match the running time of Chamber of Secrets.

I agree with you about most of this, actually, even though I liked GOF the best and POA the worst (maybe tied with OOTP). I just couldn't get around the huge omission in POA, which basically ruined the whole thing for me. I actually liked the fourth movie because I thought it made sense and captured the important elements (both plot and theme) of the book.

[waroriole]

I think the best thing to do with the movies is to put them in context and separate them from the book. Are the movies as good as the books? Not even close. But, separately they are entertaining, especially if you don't go into them looking for things that are different from the books. There are always going to be events that are important to a book that are left out of the movie, but if you see it as a separate entity then you can appreciate it for what it is.

[square634]

I think the best thing to do with the movies is to put them in context and separate them from the book. Are the movies as good as the books? Not even close. But, separately they are entertaining, especially if you don't go into them looking for things that are different from the books. There are always going to be events that are important to a book that are left out of the movie, but if you see it as a separate entity then you can appreciate it for what it is.

I really try to do that, but then I find myself not understanding the stand-alone plot.

[waroriole]

I really try to do that, but then I find myself not understanding the stand-alone plot.

I think OOTP was the only movie that couldn't "stand alone." The other movies might have missed smaller points that helped tie everything together more easily, but were still self explanatory.

[Lt Melmo]

Yeesh.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38251

Horrible reviews from a Chicago screening, sounds like things that can't be changed without being re-shot.

Spoilers if you haven't read the book I guess:

After that, they make their way to the tower and instead of using a charm to immobilize Harry and cover him with the invisibility cloak like in the book, Dumbledore just sends Harry away, and Harry goes downstairs, stops & watches the following scene through cracks in the floor above him. Malfoy tries to kill Dumbledore but realizes he can’t. Snape arrives on the floor below & signals Harry to be quiet, which he uncharacteristically does. Snape then goes upstairs & sends Dumbledore to his death. The modifications made to this scene from book to film are terrible, and they partially blow what may be the biggest surprise of the entire franchise.

Afterwards, there is no enormous battle. The Death Eaters stroll out silently. I remember the fight in the book being fantastic, and I personally would rather have had a short scene in the beginning with two guys talking about the horrible things the Death Eaters are doing than eliminate the battle at the end. Harry runs after them and confronts Snape, who quietly tells him he’s the Half-Blood Prince. Again, due to lack of attention paid to this plotline, I didn’t really care. In the book, he screams his response. The book has Snape screaming and the film has him using his indoor voice. What a disappointment.

How do you mess up HBP?

[The Wedge]

After the mess he made of OOTP, I don't expect Yates to get anything right.

[Tank]

Yeah, Yates is terrible. Good thing hes directing the final 2 movies too!

[The Wedge]

I still can't wrap my brain around his logic to make OOTP the shortest movie, not only that but that the studio and Rowling went along with it. I mean, he literally made it the shortest movie because he decided he wanted it to be the shortest movie. That's moronic.

[Lt Melmo]

I still can't wrap my brain around his logic to make OOTP the shortest movie, not only that but that the studio and Rowling went along with it. I mean, he literally made it the shortest movie because he decided he wanted it to be the shortest movie. That's moronic.
Rowling has basically stayed out of the production of the films except for occasional consulting and the casting of Robbie Coltrane.

[Elbren]

IESB.net (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5449&Itemid=99)

I thought this was pretty cool, but not worth making a whole new thread over. Apparently, Jason Isaacs will make a cameo appearance in Half-Blood Prince, but not as Lucius Malfoy.


"I’m not [really] in the film [but] I did one day. I went in for a day,” Isaacs revealed to MTV News of a secret cameo he gets to make in the movie. “I’m a moving portrait on the wall."


The only character that came to mind for me was Phineas Nigellus Black. Any other ideas?

[allstar1579]

IESB.net (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5449&Itemid=99)

I thought this was pretty cool, but not worth making a whole new thread over. Apparently, Jason Isaacs will make a cameo appearance in Half-Blood Prince, but not as Lucius Malfoy.



The only character that came to mind for me was Phineas Nigellus Black. Any other ideas?

Wait...so they are cutting out Jason Isaacs altogether? Isn't the whole Draco storyline pretty integral to the book? How are you going to have that without a major role of Lucius and his wife???

[Elbren]

Wait...so they are cutting out Jason Isaacs altogether? Isn't the whole Draco storyline pretty integral to the book? How are you going to have that without a major role of Lucius and his wife???

No, his character just isn't in this movie.

I'm not 100% sure about this (been awhile since I read the book) but Lucius Malfoy doesn't appear in the book because he's in prison following the events of Order of the Phoenix.

[The Wedge]

Rowling has basically stayed out of the production of the films except for occasional consulting and the casting of Robbie Coltrane.

She needs to do more than occasional consulting, obviously. Like I said, she had to go up to Yates and smack him a bit about Kreacher. Basically had to say "you can't completely remove him, he's needed later and it's gonna be way too awkward to try to introduce him then."

[Lt Melmo]

She needs to do more than occasional consulting, obviously. Like I said, she had to go up to Yates and smack him a bit about Kreacher. Basically had to say "you can't completely remove him, he's needed later and it's gonna be way too awkward to try to introduce him then."
From what I heard it was more of an innocent "I wouldn't do that if you don't wanna have a big problem in the seventh film" with a little figurative wink. She didn't urge anyone to do anything.

[allstar1579]

No, his character just isn't in this movie.

I'm not 100% sure about this (been awhile since I read the book) but Lucius Malfoy doesn't appear in the book because he's in prison following the events of Order of the Phoenix.

I thought he asked Voldy not to use his son, I know Narcissus begs him and makes Snape take the blood oath, but I was pretty sure he tries to weasel the little one out of it once he realizes he's making him do it to punish his father. Could be wrong, but I mean just that one scene has some major character development that is needed to explain some things in the last movie(s).

[square634]

I thought he asked Voldy not to use his son, I know Narcissus begs him and makes Snape take the blood oath, but I was pretty sure he tries to weasel the little one out of it once he realizes he's making him do it to punish his father. Could be wrong, but I mean just that one scene has some major character development that is needed to explain some things in the last movie(s).

I remember Lucius being entirely absent in HBP the book.

[The Wedge]

I thought he asked Voldy not to use his son, I know Narcissus begs him and makes Snape take the blood oath, but I was pretty sure he tries to weasel the little one out of it once he realizes he's making him do it to punish his father. Could be wrong, but I mean just that one scene has some major character development that is needed to explain some things in the last movie(s).

That was his wife only.

[The Wedge]

Now that I think about it, I think Lucius is mentioned, and maybe it's mentioned that he tries to get Draco out of his task, but he's never actually seen.

[Objectivity]

She needs to do more than occasional consulting, obviously. Like I said, she had to go up to Yates and smack him a bit about Kreacher. Basically had to say "you can't completely remove him, he's needed later and it's gonna be way too awkward to try to introduce him then."

I agree it may be necessary, but filmatically, can it be done some other way? Yes, it would piss off readers of the books, but far more people see the movies than have read the books.

Assume for a moment that they don't want to use Kreacher, what else can they do.

1) Use the pensive again. Not a bad idea because they'll have to reestablish it in the movie for those who haven't seen previous ones.

2) Have Harry take it in Half-Blood and have it not be fake.

3) Leave out that Horicrux altogether.

As the changes from book to movie force other changes in response, this kind of thing is going to happen. Fortunately, the changes have been minor before compared to some other movie/tv adaptations.

We already know that the Bill/Fluer romance is going to be played by Lupin/Tonks. IMO, that makes for a better movie. We just have to treat the movies as independent and keep reminding ourselves that the movies don't change a single word of the book.