http://ihatewheat.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/loony-lovegood/ Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:36:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 http://ihatewheat.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/loony-lovegood/#comment-27288 ww_adh Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:19:34 +0000 http://ihatewheat.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/loony-lovegood/#comment-27288 I too would rate Order of the Phoenix as one of my favorites (second to Deathly Hallows, which I just finished---sigh). I thought the movie was good, second best to Goblet of Fire in my opinion (After re-watching them recently, I think Azkaban's totally overrated and too interested in its artsiness). I don't mind that a lot of stuff from the book is missing. I think of the movies as the best effort to visualize the Harry Potter world. Much of the depth of the back story is necessarily lost, as that works better on the page than on the screen. So what if Cho gives up the DA instead of that other girl who's not in the movie? Having fewer characters in the films makes sense, as it's harder to set up that many people. The DA is about half the size in the film than in the book. They invented "Nigel" to represent a combination of young Gryffindors. The Patels are both Gryffindors so they can be together. I'm fine with all that. I thought the Weasleys' rebellion was done very well--the idea in the film that the decrees (about a hundred, instead of just the 8 or so in the book) were mounted on the wall outside the great hall and that their hijinks knocked them all of the wall was cool. Imelda Staunton was amazing, and I liked that she replaced Umbridge's cough with a little squeak. We've seen non-white wizards in the previous films: Cho, the Patels, Dean, for example. Finally, I thought the Minstry of Magic looked really cool and I loved when Voldemort shattered all the windows, raining down shards of glass that Dumbledore turned into sand. I too would rate Order of the Phoenix as one of my favorites (second to Deathly Hallows, which I just finished—sigh). I thought the movie was good, second best to Goblet of Fire in my opinion (After re-watching them recently, I think Azkaban’s totally overrated and too interested in its artsiness). I don’t mind that a lot of stuff from the book is missing. I think of the movies as the best effort to visualize the Harry Potter world. Much of the depth of the back story is necessarily lost, as that works better on the page than on the screen. So what if Cho gives up the DA instead of that other girl who’s not in the movie? Having fewer characters in the films makes sense, as it’s harder to set up that many people. The DA is about half the size in the film than in the book. They invented “Nigel” to represent a combination of young Gryffindors. The Patels are both Gryffindors so they can be together. I’m fine with all that. I thought the Weasleys’ rebellion was done very well–the idea in the film that the decrees (about a hundred, instead of just the 8 or so in the book) were mounted on the wall outside the great hall and that their hijinks knocked them all of the wall was cool. Imelda Staunton was amazing, and I liked that she replaced Umbridge’s cough with a little squeak. We’ve seen non-white wizards in the previous films: Cho, the Patels, Dean, for example. Finally, I thought the Minstry of Magic looked really cool and I loved when Voldemort shattered all the windows, raining down shards of glass that Dumbledore turned into sand.

]]>