Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Harry Potter strikes back 162

Posted by CmdrTaco from the dobbie-doesn't-like-that dept.
theefer writes "Harry Knowles from Ain't It Cool News has posted a link to the Harry Potter & Chamber of Secrets trailer. RealVideo, WindowsMedia and Quicktime versions available. Looks better than the first movie. Muggles, start your crossover plugins."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Harry Potter strikes back More

Harry Potter strikes back

Comments Filter:
  • and great FX. Cant wait for the next one.
  • Who want the Chamber of Secrets movie? I want Harry Potter 5! Why is it taking her so long?
    • I want Harry Potter 5!

      It will be released when it's done.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Better than the first movie? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tcc ( 140386 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @09:53AM (#4260579) Homepage Journal
    I didn't like the first movie, I don't think it did justice to the book.

    Maybe it was due to the fact that I saw it on DVD instead of movie theatre, but I think the movie wasn't that great compared to expectations. Of course if you are a kid, chances are you were enchanted to see the book character comming to life. So in that perspective it was probably good. But they did mention targetting the whole family, and I saw disney movies that caught me way more than this one, and most are far less violent or adult-oriented (if I can say it like that).

    I thought maybe it was because I couldn't be impressed anymore with special effects and storylines and so on, but when I recall my reaction seeing LOTR, it proves to me that it's not true, that I can still be amazed. Problem is I can't point precisely what I didn't about harry potter... maybe it's the linearity of events, maybe it was the actors...

    maybe someone else was stuck with that feeling afterwards and could spring in some discussion as well.

    • ... so mod whores, here ya go :-)

      Harry Potter in the book is a spunky little kid, always tweaking his cousin, always getting into trouble, even when it's not intentional. The movie Harry Potter is too damned cautious or timid. I can't imagine him pissing off Dudley even by accident.

      The movie left out Hermione's contribution to the final part, and also changed a bunch of it around for no particular reason.
    • i went to see it at an 11:30 pm showing after it had been out for weeks and i had the entire theatre to myself and my g/f (who had talked me into giong to the movies that night) and I was actually impressed as I had expected it to be another annoying kiddie film.. i haven't read the books and probably won't either.. my $.02
    • I think the biggest problem was that so much of the movie's focus was about being faithful to the book. Chris Columbus et al were so concerned with making the book's fans happy that they lost a lot of opportunities to make a better movie.

      One of the reasons Fellowship of the Ring was such a great movie was that the screenwriters and director took real liberties with the _story_ to make it better for the film medium. Tolkien's books are not nearly as plot-driven as the Harry Potter series - there's a huge amount of character development and background information, providing a rich palette from which to draw when translating to another medium.

      Jackson's team recognized this, and were incredibly faithful to Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth, even as they altered the plot of the story to fit into the new format.

      While the Harry Potter books are great, they are ultimately children's books. They just don't have the enormous depth of Middle Earth; Columbus's team had a much less rich palette to draw on. I thought they did a good job with the look and feel of the place. But the simpler world, combined with rabid (and very young) fans demanding a movie very closely matched to the book, lead to a film that's perhaps not as strong as it could be.

      -Alex

      • If they had only altered LOTR's plot it wouldn't be half bad. Their treatment of the characters, and especially Gimli, is HORRIBLE. Enough to ruin the damn movie. Hell, whenever Gimli opened his mouth, I thought I was watching the D&D movie *shiver*

        The Harry Potter movie characters, however, were right on target. Of course, it wasn't so much an adaptation as a transcription, just like Ralph Bakshi's LOTR was.

    • I took my nephew and some of his friends to see the 1st Harry Potter movie. I thought it was pretty good (although I have not read any of the books), but they all agreed that it wasn't quite as good as they expected.

      I think that expectations for some of the bigger films (i.e. HUGE ad campaigns) outgrow the film. We are inundated with print ad and TV spots for 2 or 3 months before the film is released. We are teased with quick shot after quick shot. And by the time the film is released, it doesn't meet with our overgrown expectation. In addition, any movie taken from a best-selling novel tends to not live up to the original novel.

    • Re:Better than the first movie? (Score:4, Informative)

      by epukinsk ( 120536 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @12:52PM (#4261092) Homepage Journal
      Director Chris Colubus is the reason Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was as poor as it was. From where I was sitting, the continuity was crap and all the subtlety in the characters in the book went in one of Columbus's ears and out the other.

      Take for example the scene where Madam Hooch drags Harry off for his horseplay in flying class. In the book the scene was extremely tense because you are wondering how Madam Hooch will react. The scene in the movie--because of the music choice, the way the scene is cut and the coaching of the actors--comes of completely flat.

      It's sometimes hard to see because the story is so enchanting, but most of the scenes are just completely flat because of Columbus's shoddy directing. Thankfully, the third Harry Potter installment won't be directed by Columbus [canoe.ca], but most likely Alfonso Cuaron, director of the current release "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and the 1998 remake of "Great Expectations" with Gwyneth Paltrow and Ethan Hawke.

      Though Cuaron might not be the best director in the world, perhaps he will avoid Columbus's biggest mistake. There are certain things that make a good movie that simply aren't necessary to make a good book. Chris Columbus took the parts of Harry Potter that make it a great book and put them on the screen, but he didn't make the necessary changes to make it into a great movie.

      Erik
    • There are a wealth of reasons to dislike the first Potter movie. It was, on the technical level, a piece of crap.

      First and foremost, Chris Columbus's direction of shot construction. That movie had the least mobile camerawork of any film I can remember. Even "My Dinner With Andre" was more fluid, and it's just two guys sitting around a table! I can't overstate how significant this is: working the camera *into* a scene, instead of locking it down and having characters face the camera and narrate, is the very foundation of a good scene. Hell, half the movies discussed here on /. are notable b/c the staff are mostly camera nerds: the Matrix brothers had to hack together their systems for the stop-n-rotate scenes, there's so much being done with DVcam for portability, etc. Go watch the Potter movie again, and see if you can count more than 5 tracking shots in the whole freakin' film. Columbus had full lockdown for almost all footage, and tried to fake fluidity in editing. He's a hack.

      The casting was mostly remarkable, except for Dumbledore. The guy playing him isn't going to live to the third movie! What was Columbus thinking? Oh, wait, we covered that deficiency already. Nevermind that for a minute. The actors were very good, but they were constrained by camerawork that was no better than a TV soundstage. So excellent casting and delivery, hobbled by poor framing.

      Similarly, the stunts were crap. In the Quidditch scene, did anyone else get the feeling they were watching a late-80's graphics demo? Like from 2nd Reality or something?

      The score was repetitive and totally forgettable. I intellectually recall the existence of background music, but can recall and feel none of it whatsoever. The best score this year, btw, is in The Bourne Identity, if you like scores.

      Costumes & set construction was unusual: I wasn't expecting steampunk. But that's only stylistic, and not a point of contention, unlike the stupid 'flying staircases' scenes: they 1) weren't in the books, and 2) didn't develop anyone's character. It was typical kids-movie tripe: pointless onscreen toys for gefingerpoken und mittengrubben. Besides that, I was thinking, "didn't I already see this in Labyrinth?" Although, if they added David Bowie in tight pants to the later films, you bet you'd find me in the theater more often.
      • They aren't flying, they're changing and yes they were in the book. Read it again.
        • I had imagined the staircases moving when no one was looking. You would try to take a staircase and find that it has goes somewhere else. The ones in the movie looked like mechanical contraptions. Personally, I really didn't like that part of the interpretation.
      • Columbus had full lockdown for almost all footage, and tried to fake fluidity in editing. He's a hack.

        While I agree Columbus is hack, I totally disagree with your analysis of why he's so bad. Smoothness in editing doesn't come from tracking the camera, it comes from motivating the cuts and camera movements. This is what continuity editing is all about.

        There are many many scenes in movie history with no camera movement whatsoever that are cut so beatifully that they come off as smooth as glass. It's about coaching the actors to give you the emotional responses you need for motivated cuts and setting up the shots beforehand such that the editing tells part of the story.

        You can track every damn shot in the movie and it will still be a piece of shit if you don't pay attention to continuity.

        Erik
        • Hmm.. you make an excellent point, and illuminate it better than I did. But I think we are still in agreement: I think that Columbus set the shots up poorly, and tried to fix all that in the edits. What I got wrong was focusing too much on movement as the prime indicator for a well-framed shot. Forgive me, I'm still new at this.
      • The casting was mostly remarkable, except for Dumbledore. The guy playing him isn't going to live to the third movie!
        I take serious exception to this statement. "The Guy" who portrays Dumbledore is none other that Richard Harris. A notable and fine Irish actor. Perhaps the "biggest" star of the lot. I remember seeing him live on stage portray King Arthur in Camelot, a role he's portrayed many, many, times on stage and screen. Here's a little more info on whom you speak:

        Richard Harris
        actor
        Born: 10/1/1933
        Birthplace: Limerick, Ireland
        Though born in Ireland, he has played the part of English kings, Arthur in the film version of Lerner and Loewe's Camelot (1967) and Richard I in Robin and Marian (1976), and French king George II in King of the Wind (1989). Throughout his prolific career, Harris has been part of classic films, including The Guns of Navarone (1961), Mutiny on the Bounty (1962), Hawaii (1966), and Unforgiven (1992). He received Best Actor Oscar nominations for The Field (1990) and This Sporting Life (1963), and won a Golden Globe for Camelot (1967). More recently, Harris has appeared in Gladiator (2000), and as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone(2001).

        Well, now that we've got THAT straightened up.

        Cheers,
        Jonathan

    • One big problem was that the major people involved were there for the money, not the movie. The license was bought by WB and assigned to staff who were not enthusiastic or a good fit, but could be made obedient with enough money. Compare that to LotR which was started and run by a director who had to have enough enthusiasm to convince a reluctant studio and staff to commit $300M, 18 months of production and 2 years of post-production.

      The Harry Potter movies are made to cash-in on a fad before it vanishes. The LotR movies are made because the director is a fan of the books.

    • I felt the same way when I saw it on DVD. Seeing it on the big screen, I thought it was very good... But then I read the books, then watched a friend's copy of the DVD... And saw that there was so much they'd dropped out. It had basically been turned into a bunch of "best of" scenes that were, at best, loosely connected together.

      And then LotR and Spider-man blew it all away.

      Here's hoping the second one does a better job!

    • I haven't read the books and won't judge the first book based on the movie, but I was fairly bored by it and here's why:

      There wasn't one character in that movie that had any depth to him or her. Everyone was either a stereotype or the stereotypical exception to a stereotype (e.g., Alan Rickman's character, who is assumed to be evil 'cause he's a creep but turns out not to be).

      Nothing made me care about the characters, particularly the antagonist.

      I didn't go in jaded to be sure, especially since I was recently BLOWN AWAY by the LOTR and was expecting a good movie, but now I have no desire to see any more Harry Potter films.

      • (e.g., Alan Rickman's character, who is assumed to be evil 'cause he's a creep but turns out not to be).

        You should probably read the books. Professor Snape definitely hates Harry Potter. I thought that Alan Rickman was an excellent choice to play Snape. His speech on the first day of Potions class was exactly as I imagined, and the director did not meet my expectations often...
        • Oh, I would agree with you... the casting was great. I love Rickman's work.

          I'm just glad LOTR is being done by someone who clearly has a deep affection for and understanding of the material and how to translate an untranslateable book into a movie with minimal compromise.

          I've got the book, I'll get to it some day.

    • I thought maybe it was because I couldn't be impressed anymore with special effects and storylines and so on, but when I recall my reaction seeing LOTR, it proves to me that it's not true, that I can still be amazed. Problem is I can't point precisely what I didn't about harry potter... maybe it's the linearity of events, maybe it was the actors...

      Could it be that Peter Jackson actually took the time to make a good movie? Could it be that the faster Hollywood churns out movies, the more money they make, so movie quality deteriorates as a result?

  • Secret Chambers. (Score:5, Funny)

    by _ganja_ ( 179968 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @09:57AM (#4260596) Homepage
    What is this? Slashdot "Secret Chamber Day" or something?

  • Work of the Devil (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lord Apathy ( 584315 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @09:59AM (#4260598)

    Since the bible thumpers seem to be asleep at the switch, I'll go a head and start the ball rolling for them.

    Harry Potter is Evil, its the work of the devil. teaches the children the ways of satan and witchcraft. your all going to hell for this ungodly sin.. its EVILL i tell you EVILLLLLLL.

    but of course you can help save the children, just send a love offerign.. call 1-900-sucker.. just think of the childrennnn not to mention my doghouse needs a new air conditioner... and I could use a bigger pool.....

    Hows that? Kind of lame but I haven't had my coffiee yet.

    moderators note: this is to be moderated as funny, not troll or flamebait. If you don't get the joke just go on and come back to it later

    • Just because its the work of the devil doesnt mean its all bad!

      "Satan, God's OTHER Son!"

    • Re:Work of the Devil (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Fished ( 574624 )
      I'm an accredited Bible-Thumper, and I like Harry Potter quite a bit. Don't believe any stereotype, because they're generally not true to life, silly slashdotter.
    • For more information: http://www.chick.com

      If you read Harry Potter, Play D&D, or don't pass out Chick Tracts, you WILL end up in a satanic cult!
      • So i read most of the chick site, and that guy is really off the deep end.

        What's amazing to me is:
        http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0179.asp
        This book, which appears to be a rebuttal of wicca, casting it as a satanic ritual. Of course, the source for this is a man who, through 16 years of wicca, came to it's higher levels. Guy's name is Bill Schnoebelen.

        Now, that in it's self isn't amazing. What's amazing is that this same guy, Bill Schnoebelen, somehow, in the same lifetime, managed to make it to the 32nd level of masonry. See for yourself here...
        http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0193.a sp
        Now, it says on both accounts that he came out of each religion to awaken to the love of Jesus Christ. Well, I don't think you can have it both ways. I mean, if he left one for jesus, woudn't he have to renounce jesus in order to become the next religion, and then be able to leave it for jesus? Or, was he both Wiccan and Masonic at the same time?

        Seems more likely that he doesn't exist. Or, if he does exist, why trust religious persuasions from a guy who has been both a 16 year wiccan priest and a 32nd level mason, before becomming a christian?

        • Yeah, I've read just about everything by Bill Schnoebelen. He wrote a couple of the articles that say D&D is Satanic. He purports that he helped TSR make magic in D&D "authentic" when he was a Wiccan.

          This seems highly doubtful since he seems to know almost nothing about the game except what he might have learned through skimming a rule book once or twice.

          This stuff is actually pretty amusing to read because his grasp of the game is so poor that it does beg the question if he really exists at all, or if he is just someone "made up" by Chick Publications.

          For a really funny read, check out the Dark Dungeons comic that Jack Chick wrote in 1984 It involves a teenager plays D&D, and then joins a Satanic cult. But then her friend commits suicide (because of D&D), and she discovers how bad D&D _really_ is!!!!
          http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0 046_01.a sp

          Interestingly enough, I've read that Jack Chick and his company make millions a year selling their literature. Not surprising, considering the blatant sensationalism they hype their stuff up with.
    • Since the bible thumpers seem to be asleep at the switch...

      They were probably in church, this being a Sunday 'n all.

  • Curmudgeon death blow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Demona ( 7994 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @09:59AM (#4260600) Homepage
    I haven't read any of the Potter books, nor did I see the first movie. Yesterday I downloaded the trailer at my wife's request (obligatory direct link to the 17Mb Quicktime [aol.com]) and watched it with her. She has read all the books and seen the first movie. Now she shrugged this off, surprisingly enough, so I want your reaction to my statement made immediately after watching it:

    "I defy anyone to tell me with a straight face that Harry Potter has not been Hollywoodicized, when you see a fricking HONG KONG SPIN IN THE TRAILER."
    Yes? No? Maybe? Am I just a curmudgeon, or is there a proper time and place for everything -- and are we sick to fricking death of seeing Hollywood turn the classic Hong Kong Spin into an overused whoring technique that turns everything into everything else and the Matrix?

    My wife thinks it'll be during the "Duelling" bit.

    • Actually, upon freeze frame it looks like it's the Gilderoy vs. Snape duel where, if I remember correctly, Snape sends Gilderoy flying. It may not be a "Hong Kong Spin" so much as a "just-got-hit-off-center-with-a-blast-of-something -nasty-and-I'm-being -blown-away" spin.

    • Hey, thanks for the link! I've been trying to figure out how to get my hands on that... I just hadn't dedicated too many neurons to finding it. With a little more effort, I managed to dig up the first trailer (Quicktime/25.5 MB!) [aol.com], so now everyone can have a matched set!

      Now, about that 'fight' scene... so that's a "Hong Kong Spin," huh? Never knew that little tidbit. It sure looks like something I've seen in a dozen other movies. Perhaps it's an 'action move' that's (comparatively) easy to teach/perform/film? Best "bang for the filming buck?"

      If they use "bullet time" in a Harry Potter movie, what'll they call it? ("Wizard Time?") What things happen so fast they'd need it? (I started to think "no guns in the Harry Potter universe" -- I keep forgetting the setting is present-day.)

    • From the trailer, it's been overdone. The whole point of the Harry Potter books is that magic is [I]routine[/I], and Harry has to deal with it. The trailer has way too much moving camera work.

      Rowling is likely to feel about this the way Tom Clancy did about the movie version of "Patriot Games". It's customary in Hollywood to ignore the writer, but Rowling and Clancy write books that translate well into screenplays. Rowling, in fact, is better at it; Clancy's books have several times as much material as will fit in a movie, but Rowling's books translate well scene for scene.

  • be better than the past one.
    I am watching this one because i liked the books and i have so poor imaginatin I like when i can give faces and voices to the characters.
    But the first movie was really bad, imho.
    To LOTR, the wors thing done was ripping out Glorfindel and putting Arwen in its place, and THAT phrase "If you want him, come and claim him". Agh!
    But what they did to the first HP (not Hewlett Packard btw, as in IP doesnt mean Internet Protocol any more) book ... ouch.
    hope this one is better and more truthfull to the story and the book.
    PS. I still am one of those poor guys with 56K modem connection and with no QT plugin. Anyone knows if there is a downloadable version somewere?
  • I'm shocked this is the latest AICN story in a while!

    Here's some other tidbits from the site:

    Among many other interesting stories. The only problem is their "talkback" system will make you long for Slash or PHPNuke ;-)

  • This is the SECOND trailer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @10:13AM (#4260628)
    There was a first trailer back in June (and shown with several movies, including MIB2, back then) which you can get from Apple's QT site as well as WB's site. This is a different trailer, and shows several new scenes (most which appear to be straight from the book).

    (And coincidence or not, Pete Abrams has been doing a Potter parody at Sluggy Freelance [sluggy.com] for the last couple of weeks, based weakly off the first book/movie).


    • (And coincidence or not, Pete Abrams has been doing a Potter parody at Sluggy Freelance for the last couple of weeks, based weakly off the first book/movie).

      I doubt it's a coincidence. Pete tends to have plotlines worked out 6-12 months in advance (at least according to the hintings on his site). I imagine he's been planning this for quite a while. He said he had the last arc (Aylee showdown) planned since what would have been Summer 2000 (The Lodoze/Gofotron arc). I think he has more ideas and less time to draw, which is definitely not a bad thing.

      It's a shame sluggy isn't syndicated or similar, it's probably the best daily comic out there.
    • Actually it's the third trailer overall. There was a 30 second teaser around June, and then a trailer around August. I've had links for the 3 of them.

      Actually I fail to see all the hoopla, it's already available on the official Potter site.
  • Things like quidith where one person was lit from the left and the other was lit from the right.

    I know it is a childrens movie but a lot of adults love Harry Potter and in this day and age effects like that should be spot on

  • "Muggles, start your crossover plugins." ?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by samoht ( 101985 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @10:20AM (#4260647) Homepage
    Tsk. That can't right. Everybody knows that muggles use Windows. It's the wizards who use Linux and thus have need of the Transversus Celeritum Tempus incantation.

  • When does Darth Vader... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Wag ( 102501 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @10:20AM (#4260650)
    announce he's Harry's father?
    • I believe that's coming in book 5. The first books are leading to something wierd. Harry has a duplicate wand to Voldemorts, both from the same Pheonix. They can both speak parseltounge, they look alike. I could go on and on. Considering Voldemort is adopted and Harry is an Orphan, i think there are some real posibilities they are related somewhow.
      • More likely, those traits can be attributed to some form of transferance when Voldemort tried to kill Harry. I mean, it damn near killed You-Know-Who, so that would seem to indicate that his "power" for lack of a better word, went somewhere (like into Harry). It would also explain why Harry's scar burns when Voldemort is near. They are linked magically.

        While Voldemort was adopted, his lineage is clearly known: his mother was a wizard, his father a muggle. Harry's lineage is also well known. If there is any connection between the two, it would have to be pretty far up the line.

        So I doubt we'll be seeing any kind of "I'm your father, Luke" moments come out of books 5-7. If we do, it'll be pretty lame.

        • agreed (Score:1)

          by geek ( 5680 )
          I would hate to see it, but i know something will crop up. I mean in book one Rowling spent almost a full page explaining how much they look alike. In book two she did it again at the end when he meets Tom Riddle.

          There has to be something to that. I know the transferance part, that was explained in book two in regards to the parseltounge thing. I just get the feeling there was a lot left out. Every book brings up something we didnt know about his past.
      • Nope, JKR has already specifically disclaimed this one (and acknowledged the starwars potential) in a TV interview (on long-running BBC kids show Blue Petter, for the anoraks who care).

        I can't remember which book but the idea has been raised (probably more than once) that it was the killing attempt on Harry by Voldemort which "connected" them (conveniant "potter-sense tingling" curse scar pains, etc.), rather than being related.

        If any cheesy family ties are to be found, I'd expect Harry to be a descendant of Godric Griffindor (his parents used to live in Godric's Hollow, remember...).

        • Yup, that's my call also. He's a descendent of Gryffindor on his father's side, and whatserface's "only other accurate prophecy" was that the Heir of Gryffindor would be the undoing of the Heir of Slytherin.

          That's why Voldemort says that he wanted to kill Harry's father, but only killed Harry's mother because she was trying to save Harry.

          Only problem with that theory is, doesn't that mean that Harry should have inherited the Gryffindor green eyes from his father, rather than his mother? (I'm guessing as to the significance of the eyes, but why else make such a big deal about them?) Maybe that's another mistake like the incorrect order of deaths in GoF, but one that made it into several published books. And maybe the reason for the delay in book 5 is that JKR can't figure out how to reconcile the mistake with the story! Nah, now we're getting into conspiracy theory. But I'd bet money that the first two paragraphs of this post are accurate.

          Stuart.
    • Episode 5. But it won't be until Episode 6 that Harry realizes that Hermione is his twin sister and the jealous love triangle with Ron is resolved...

      Of course, that puts Harry's owl as R2-D2 and Voldemort as Vader.

  • Harry Potter vs. LoTR (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NaveWeiss ( 567082 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @10:21AM (#4260652) Homepage Journal
    So what's worse - HP or LoTR?

    LoTR has shallow characters, and everybody knows that (even the fans). Tolkien prefered to concentrate on his universe rather on the characters, and the result is that I don't care about the protagonists, so why would I care about the story?

    HP has much more interesting characters, and they develop through the books. The main problem is that it's childish. There are gags which repeat through the series, like for example the usual mess Harry Potter leaves in the Dursley's place before his school year start. I get sort of an industrial feeling when I read it.. especially during the fourth book.

    But what, at least HP is a page turner. I couldn't finish the first LoTR book - I had an urge to fall asleep each time I read it.. (especially after the gang left the Elven village).

    And about the movies.. HP was more interesting than LoTR.. but what, I think the HP book is more enjoyable. After all, the movie has to cut a lot of stories.. and besides, it's still fun to imagine the story yourself.
    • well, to put it simple, lotr is just one part of great epic history. you gotta admire the work that went to middle-earth and all that.. especially since he couldn't just take a hike and listen some elder people gabble some poetic stories and then remix/combine them (like one writer who documented folklore which ended up being part of inspiration to this made up world of tolkiens).

      harry potter on the other hand is just modification of this world mixed with some folklore and exciting things.

      you can read all the harry potters in the same time as you can read silmarillion(yes i've read both of 'em, harry potter is so straightforward writing that you can read it really fast and not lose anything, the (hp)books getting so thick is because of this.. they're getting better tho, and not at all _that_ bad books).

      btw, there is an excellent cartoon that's available on dvd of "hobbit"(is it hobbits tale in english?). not realistic but very hobbit stylish..
    • If you must know was the finer book of LOR. Doubt that the film would do it justice. As to Hp, why bother.
  • Just paste this location into realplayer
    http://raincloud.warnerbros.com/harrypotter/us/m ed /trailer/hp2_trl2_500.rpm

  • Re: Crossover (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @10:34AM (#4260688)
    I was thinking about this earlier today and realized I'd be happier to have to pay Apple for a native Linux Quicktime player than pay to own Crossover Plugin (as I do now).
  • Does anyone else read the title as "The Chamber Potty of Secrets"?

    I mean, no wonder that it's remained sealed for so long and why it's such a big deal when it's openned. Sitting on it would probably give you Malvolmort's face, and not on the back of your head this time!

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday September 15, 2002 @10:47AM (#4260720)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ...Harry's voice sounded a bit odd? "Harry Potter: the year my voice broke" or something...
    • Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter)'s voice broke near the end of filming the first movie (The Philosopher's Stone) and the producers had to dub someone else's voice over for part of the film.

      Tim

    • ...Harry's voice sounded a bit odd? "Harry Potter: the year my voice broke" or something...

      I would have no ethical problems whatsoever with treating the actors with hormones to keep their growth in line with the filming schedule :-)
  • can xine or mplayer play any of the trailers?
    • Take a nice cup of:

      [1]./asfrecorder "http://raincloud.warnerbros.com/harrypotter/us/me d/trailer/hp2_trl2_500.asx"

      and just share it. Is just a trailer. And you take the load from `demand.stream.aol.com`...

      ./mplayer hp2_trl2_500.wmv


      BTW: The Queens of the Stoneage video is far better.

      [1]asfrecorder.c - by an unknown author, so no one is to blame. Well, blame it on Microsoft.

  • I'm really excited about the trailer. But not as excited as I am about my Harry Potter Nimbus 2000 Broom [amazon.com]:

    "Enhancing the excitement are the vibrating effects and magical swooping and whooshing sounds the broom makes when on."

    I never thought playing with a toy could be so much fun. My girlfriend really seems to like it too.

  • If you're having trouble loading it at a decent pace (or at all, like me), Apple have got a copy (in QT, obviously)

    http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/harrypottercham be rofsecrets.html
  • I couldn't put them down. I read the final book, all 734 pages in one day. That's how good the writing is.

    The second book is probably my favorite which is why I am both excited about the movie and dreading it. I don't think they can do it justice. I already noticed in the trailer several glaring missteps and innacuracies.

    I don't think there should be a 3rd movie. The actors, especially the kid who plays Ron, already look to old for the parts. They are supposed to be 12 years old in the movie but look closer to 14-15. By the next movie they will be 13 on film and 17-18 in real life. I couldn't stand to watch if they got replaced. The kids who play Ron and Hermione have done an incredible job. Considering the kid who plays Ron has never acted before in his life, I'd say he's got a bright future ahead of him.
  • Dirct link to the high rez quicktime is here [aol.com].

  • Three hours? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkiddNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday September 15, 2002 @02:39PM (#4261533) Homepage
    I've read the first HP book and, though I'm not a hardcore reader, I could probably put away the other three in less than a month, so I'll do the "read book quickly before movie comes out" routine for this one.

    That having been said, I noticed that the books get longer and longer, with the fourth one going over 700 pages. At this rate Harry Potter 7 may give War & Peace a run for its money (W&P, BTW, makes for a hilarious gag on the back of your toilet). However, the first movie was three hours long and we all know that audiences don't have an attention span longer than that (myself included). I assume that HP2 will be 3 hours as well, but given the "faithful/not faithful" debate, doesn't it stand to reason that the movie series is doomed to become less and less faithful to the books as the movies have to cut more and more out?

    Am I the only one that thinks they shoukd have made the first movie 2 hours and left themselves some room?

  • What, did they hire some actors for this one?
  • Ok, the Slashdot community basically slammed the idea of Keanu as Superman. But how about Keanu as an older, wiser Harry Potter.

    "I know Kung-fu!"

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close