|
|
Post by kalilza on Jun 16, 2004 10:55:18 GMT -8
I would like it if they broke it up into two different movies, twice the fun, for twice as long, that way they wouldn't have to cut so much out, as they would have to do if it was only a one parter
|
|
|
|
Post by krisconcepcion19 on Jun 17, 2004 1:21:12 GMT -8
Its kinda strange talkin to u bout the movies and the books of Harry Potter... The names are different, so sometimes i have to guess what r u talkin about... Kinda difficult.. At least the names r almos the exact translation... But some names and nicknames... The names in English and Portuguese r ABSOLUTELY different... Like Muggles (NOn wizard ppl)... i never heard Muggle in all my life, only in Harry Potter... The reason that you have only heard the word muggle in Harry Potter is that the author made that word up. That's why.  |
|
|
|
Post by MiM_AtAcA on Jun 25, 2004 21:51:45 GMT -8
The translation of Muggle here in Brazil is Trouxa.. Trouxa is an existent word! Trouxa is like a fool person... This was one of the first things i heard when i started reading the books... Like, "trouxas" r the non magical ppl, so it sounds like a bad thing...
|
|
|
|
Post by BunnyRabt on Jun 27, 2004 11:28:45 GMT -8
My husband and I went to see it last Friday. I was very disappointed. I bought the first ones, but this one is definitely not worth buying.  |
|
|
|
Post by raz_stars on Jun 30, 2004 19:31:59 GMT -8
i finally got the chance to watch it n ohh it really sucked! so many parts were not included! it was really disappointing.. |
|
|
|
Post by MiM_AtAcA on Jul 1, 2004 8:18:59 GMT -8
That's what called our attention.. it could be better..
|
|
|
|
Post by BunnyRabt on Jul 1, 2004 22:12:26 GMT -8
my words exactly can't live with them, can live without them  Actually, you CAN live without them...it's just not as much fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by kalilza on Jul 2, 2004 13:43:22 GMT -8
if you notice, I did say you CAN live without them |
|
|
|
Post by BunnyRabt on Jul 3, 2004 7:29:26 GMT -8
yep, I guess you did say that. I was zipping through pretty fast and didn't catch that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chisa_Chan on Jul 5, 2004 5:13:23 GMT -8
I coulds si her and nit-pick over the movie all night but I wont. lol. All I gotta say is that whatever is not in the movie must not be a key plot point or whatever it's called. Like the huge crush Ginny had on Harry. That was pretty much non-existant in the movie and I was pretty angry at that but then it makes sense because it's really nothing within the plot. myeah Dunno if I'm making sense. Anyways, yeah. I think that was excluded because in the 5th book (i think) it's as though Ginny never had a Crush on Harry. Myeah, what I'm trying to say is that there might be reasons for leaving out parts in the movie. That isn't saying that I liked the movie though. lol. What really got my goolie was the set design. Helooo!?!? What in Hades was teh set designer thinking? I mean it's alright that the divination whatever class was placed outside and not in the attic but the change the location of things that have already appeared in the movie. How in Hades did the Whomping Willow suddenly move far away from the caslte? In the second movie it was right next to the walls! Myeah. I'll stop talking bout that now or I'll take up too much space. lol. I am only hoping that they do explain who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs are in the next movie.. oh hang on a minute. WHERE'S PEEVES!?!  ?!??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !?? How could they completely exclude his character? I mena yeah sure it's ok that they don't put much on the Ghosts in the movie but C'mon people! Peeves is like THE Ghost. They'd better put him in the movie or I'll threaten never to watch another Harry Potter movie again and then the next week I'll be watching it again and when the next one comes out i'll watch it. *le sigh* I want Peeeveeeeessss!! *screams like a child*. Now that that's off my chest. Myeah. Another thing I have to say is that it is much more enjoyable if you do not make reference to the books. You should view them as seperate things. I found this helped a little bit especially after I saw Interview with the Vampire. That's even worse compared to Harry Potter. They made things up, changed characters and excluded a whole heap out. No sorry, correct that. Queen of the darned is THE WORST movie to see if you have read the book. So myeah. The Harry Potter Books are GREAT and the movies are only there for people who haven't read the books or would like help in visualising characters. I woulda never picked Alan Rickman as Snape! lol. I shall cease to type now. lol a bientôt<br><3 Chisa. P.S. I will edit this later so my mistakes are gone but i'm too tired to do it now. lol. |
|
|
|
Post by kalilza on Jul 5, 2004 9:28:01 GMT -8
I have to agree about interview with a vampire, they did leave some stuff out, but ann rice was there for the making of the movie, and she said she was very proud of it. But I have to say tom cruise does NOT make a good blond, it just didn't work for him, not at all.
and I definitely have to agree with you that QUeen of hte darned was WAAAAAAY off. talk about not following the book, they made (forgot her name, the red haired girl) the main part of the book, AND lestats love interest, when she was a much smaller part in the movie, and the reason she was turned into a vampire.....yea, not right. and what in the world where they thinking when they had marius be the one to turn lestat, I could deal with everything else, but that is totally not right! oh, and it is to bad that aliha died in the making of the movie, cuz akasha didn't get to show up as much as I would have liked.
also, I think they should have madew two different movies, one, the vampire lestat, and two, queen of the darned, since they kinda ccombined both books, and it didn't work very well.
but that is still one of my fav movies of all time, as long as you dont compare it to the book, the movie is great!!! and stewart townsend was a great lestat, much hotter looking than tom cruise, although stewart townsend doesn't look so good without the make-up.....ok, shutting up now ;D
but all in all, I think both movies where pretty good, both of them had great one liners. oh, and they had a eprfect santiago for interview with a vampire
|
|
|
|
Post by Chisa_Chan on Jul 5, 2004 23:43:30 GMT -8
Yes! Whoever it was that played Santiago was PERFECT for the part. Makes me wish he had a bigger part *le sigh* ah well. I actually refused to watch Queen of the darned after a friend told me all about it. Maybe once I've finished reading the books i'll watch it and pretend it has nothing to do with the movie. The whole idea of Marius making Lestat a vampy is what turned me off it. And why the heck was Antonio Banderas cast as Armand in the first movie? Yeah sure he made a koolies vampy and he's a great actor but...but... Armand is meant to be a 16 year old red-head.
Anyways, myeah. Back to Shrek.
My little sister is seeing it tomorrow. I've made sure she's gonna stay and watch the extra bit in the credits. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by tiffy426 on Aug 31, 2004 20:28:47 GMT -8
I read all 5 books that are out so far. (since I own the whole series) And I've seen all 3 movies.
|
|
?!??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
{=}http://s4.images.proboards.com/cheesy.gif{/=}