I know this isn't going to be very good, but I feel obligated to be there for the midnight release anyway.

*sigh*

I wish they hadn't kiddiefied the series.

wat.

I'm 28... never read the books... and I have to say, it's one of the greatest movie series I've had the pleasure of watching. Kiddie nothing, they are fun.

How did they 'kiddifie" it? the movies are getting progressively dark as the books did. I cant wait for this movie.

"kiddiefied the series" I disagree. The first couple were "kiddiefied" because they were directed by Chris Columbus (Home Alone , Home Alone 2: Lost in New York) and they were PG...while the others have been directed by other directors like Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men), Mike Newell, and David Yates (Sex Traffic ) and PG-13...and besides that with each film Lord Voldemort is becoming more powerful therefore darker material, aka PG-13, not so much "kiddiefied" now. Oh the book also when from kids fiction to teen fiction.

In some ways I think they’ve almost focused too much on the darkness of the book. I know it’s not entirely their fault considering the amount of actual story they have to fit into a single movie but one of the great things about the books is that you get a lot more charm and character than the movie could possibly squeeze into one series.

I’m not saying the movies are bad, I think their fantastic actually, but for completely valid reasons they tend to lean toward those larger set pieces and huge story points while leaving some of the smaller, more tender moments on the cutting room floor.

Of course, the movies have emotion, just less then the book. Both the movies and the books make me feel a little differently and it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

I can't tell, are you being sarcastic?

kiddiefied? whatever...

they better have the Sectumsempra spell part...

or i'm gonna be pissed

They do. There was a picture of Tom Felton with all the makeup in the Daily Mail maybe a month ago.

supposedly they do, but toned down for kids & rating... ie: not the huge amount of blood & horror in the books

read the books... i know everyone always says that, but its especially true with the potter series, there's sooo much left out from the movies

only the first 2 were especially kid friendly, azkaban tore that away pretty well, and 4 & 5 continued it... this LOOKS the least "kiddy" in the series... as it should be

It looks pretty stupied with them standing there in wizard costumes :D

My god, Emma Watson looks incredible. Talk about natural beauty.
It was definitely an obvious choice for Burberry to pick her as their new face.

It looks really great! :)

No, I mean kiddified.

The first two films I'll give a pass to because the books strongly resembled children's books as well (I still don't know why the series is in the children's section of bookstores). The other 3 movies don't, however:

PoA: Yes, our friend Alfonso darkened the palette and generally made a way better film. But it wasn't nearly as dark as it should have been, not by half. Perhaps this is partly because Radcliffe and the others were still middling actors at best but I don't see where they gave it much of a shot. The audience wasn't really made to believe what the book did so well: That Sirius Black, Harry's godfather, betrayed his closest friends to Voldemort and got James and Lily killed. That's a nightmarish thing, but the film almost glosses over it. Two other things: The hatred Snape has for Lupin is seriously downplayed at the end, and the hate Sirius has for Snape simply becomes, "wow, I don't like that guy very much." The seriousness of students knocking out a teacher? Downplayed. Sirius and Lupin two seconds away from murdering another human being in front of children in cold blood? TOTALLY downplayed. Something else I'm a little angry they glossed over was the moment when Harry realizes that his father is truly dead and he only saw himself. A poignant moment in the book, ruined in the film (a recurring pattern).

GoF: The Death Eater attacks in the beginning were REALLY downplayed. Oh sure, scenes of panic, flashes of Death Eaters. Oh yeah, I've got chills up my spine. In the book it was clear everybody who came from a wizarding background or was around when Voldemort was was absolutely scared shitless. Oh, and I love how during the dragon match, the dragon forgets that it can fly as it almost 'falls off' the castle. Reeeaaaal exciting. The producers didn't realize they didn't have to amp up the tension there by creating a ridiculous version of podracing, HE'S FIGHTING A FUCKING DRAGON. Keeping him in the arena and trying to get at the egg with the dragon hovering it would have been plenty exciting. And then in the end they once again put the dampers on what was in the book some pretty tense shit when Harry comes back with a dead body. Where was the badass scene of Dumbledore totally blowing down a door in a rage as he tries to get to Harry in time? Not there. Where was Fudge in total denial of everything, setting up the next film? Not there. Where was Harry totally breaking down in Molly's arms? Not there.

Order of the Phoenix: As Robin Williams once put it: "I had hopes. I had such high hopes!" I was fairly happy with it for the most part. I didn't mind the odd Battle Apparating that happened during the climactic fight cause it was fucking awesome, as was the Dumbledore/Voldemort fight. But the lightened it up again: Gone is Harry wondering if he's going mad, as he gets angrier and angrier at Dumbledore for ignoring him. Gone is Dumbledore knocking out a roomful of people in one blow. Gone is the scene where Harry smashes Dumbledore's office and Dumbledore's heartfelt confession (replaced by a very shitty one). Gone is Harry finding out that yes, his father was a total asshole. What really bothered me was that in the book, Harry and Neville are the only two DA members left standing upright, and Neville's decently injured himself. Ginny's knocked unconscious, Ron was driven temporarily crazy, and Hermione was inches away from death. But don't worry, in the film they're all fine and dandy. Oh, and lest I forget: Way to totally kill Neville's story, Warner Brothers. As an addendum, I'll also say I was sorry not to see the moment where the portrait of Phineas Black is informed the last Black has died, and he goes to wander the halls of Grimmauld Palace calling Sirius' name in vain. I know it had to be cut, but it would have been a really touching thing to see.

Also, I get irritated at how they feel a need to end every movie on a happy note. "Well, Voldemort's back and Cedric Diggory, badass seventh-year, is totally dead, but don't worry, everything's just GREAT!" "I almost got all my friends killed because I'm a self-centered ass, I found out I have to kill Voldemort or he'll kill me and the world will go to fuck-all, and my awesome godfather was killed in front of my face, but LET'S ALL SMILE!

Please.

Oh, one last thing: Alan Rickman was the wrong choice. He's an amazing actor, don't get me wrong, but he steers Snape into the direction of camp instead of the 'menacing teacher who would be thrilled to kill you if only I could" sense you get from the books.

I agree with all your points about the films being kiddified. In fact I'm even more irritated by it then you are!

"Everything's going to change, isn't it?" Well it is for Amos Diggory, anyway.

I actually think the rot set in in Film 2. What was the with the cheering and clapping and sobbing for 20 minutes at the end? That wasn't kiddifying, that was infantalising. Also, Warner Brothers insisted that Ron be dumbed down, because audiences liked him so much in the first film that they thought Harry was 'threatened' - typical Hollywood inability to do joined up thinking. They also insisted on the Miley Cyrusing of Hermione to attract the tween market. They aren't the largest group in the audience by a long shot, but they're the noisiest - WB couldn't tell the difference. I'm no Kloves fan, but apparently his first drafts are usually fine, but the men in suits start their interfering and they end up nonsense. Keeping the characters (and plot) closer to the books wouldn't have damaged their profits, but might have led to the films being respected. As it stands, they're very average indeed. Even worse, JKR used WB opinions as a guide apparently, which didn't help the quality of the later books.

I don't think Alan Rickman was the wrong choice - I think he also suffered from WB's fatal interference. I can't believe he can't play sinister, it's likely Hollywood were scared of showing such inappropiate behaviour in a teacher. Anyway, the Director/Producers are there to make sure that the performance is suitable. Rickman isn't a Hollywood star, who insists on everything his own way. He's a character actor. Likewise Gambon - obviously he could manage a more canon performance, (the HBP clips seem to indicate that he's managed it) but was allowed to do his own interpretation. He's open that he hasn't read the books, so it was obvious that he needed strong directorial input at the start.

The films could be remade, but the priceless maketing tool of the books being released at the same time has been lost. I could go on until the Dawn of the next Ice Age, so better stop now.

I've given up on HP now, 3 was the only film I liked (because it didn't take itself too seriously and was fun) 4 was a alright just because of the amount of action but I HATED the way 5 was directed and considering it's the same guy doing 6 and 7 I will only watch if there is a group outing with people I know (which no doubt there will be), the HP franchise has been dragged out too long, we all know how it'd going to end. I'll probably end up watching all of them anyway.

I've had this one theory sence the first film.
Harry Potter should be a BBC TV seres!
Think about it, each book is a season, that way they don' t have to cut anything out and can spend time on th little moments, also it would be one series a year (apart from the delay from the books), and JK may have written the books differently if she knew they weren't being made into a film.
Anyone else agree or is it just me???

Also my other theory is wand duels should be done like John Woo gun fights not, people standing still facing each other and the CGI team showing off.

I'm a big fan of the books so I enjoy the movies too. The only thing I don't like about the movies is that they don't stick to the cannon. I grit my teeth every time I see Harry do magic outside of school in the first 2 movies. Huge plot hole considering he would be kicked out of hogwarts.

I read the Harry Potter books growing up. Now I'm an adult and would love to see JK Rowling do something a little more adult. I would settle for another harry potter book though....

Something more adult you mean Harry Potter 7?
One problem I have with the books is they are aimed at people the same age as the main characters, so the first book is aimed at 11 years olds, the second 12 years olds and so on.
The problem is by the last book the content isn't really suitable for people the same age who read the first book.
My little sister is 10 and she read all the books in one year but I wouldn't really have said that last book was subtable for a 10 year old but maybe that's just me.

In my opinion, the past few movies have not been as dark as the books have been. They have made them sort of kiddish, I think, to help accomodate a wider audience. These days, all anyone cares about is making more money out of something than what he or she puts into it. Example one: the Harry Potter movie franchise. The books were written incredibly and WERE dark. The movies, however, have taken on a sort of trouble-is-coming-but-everything-is-going-to-be-just-fine attitude. It's not in keeping with the tone of J.K. Rowling's novels. But... I'm still a fan, so what can I say? I've already purchased tickets for the midnight showing, and I'll probably be dressing up as well. I'm just a little confused as to why this particular film earned a PG rating. It doesn't make sense given the shady material of the book.

its amazing

this is pretty different to what others have been talking about but i would like to say the top picture is of some thing they added to the movie to help explain the plot with out doing many large scenes wich i thought was well dont because they managed to narrow some thing large into some thing small but still really wicked. im a huge harry potter fan of the books and the movies ive read them all many tims and am a little obsessed but i still have a life :)
also i notcied that some one said i grit my teeth each time harry uses magic outside of school in the first 2 movies meaning the sorcers stone and the chamber of secrets. harry doesnt use any magic in the first one other thant the stuff he cant control which happens to all children that have magical abilities. In the second one i dont remeber any in there either.

harry and ron are the cutest guys in harry potter but draco's OK........(awwwwwwww...........)