Saw it yesterday. Excellent. I'm beginning to prefer the films to the books. I find Rowling's incessant adverbs distracting. They take me out of the story (he said distantly).

ROFL! You always provide great insight on how not to write (she said thankfully).

"I will not sing her praises," he exclaimed sycophantically.

I haven't seen the movie yet. Waiting until I get a free night, Ha! Might have to wait for DVD. Since, if I only get one movie night, it's going to be for King Kong.

I think adverbs aren't used enough in today's America.

Not so sure about that, T. Nouns are the stars, verbs do the grunt work, and adverbs are the ones who sit in the dressing room wondering if the sentence makes their ass look fat. Give me a second-generation adjective anytime. An honest working-class modifier that never misses Sunday Mass. So sez Oi.

Nouns are the stars, verbs do the grunt work, and adverbs are the ones who sit in the dressing room wondering if the sentence makes their ass look fat.

Wow, that's the coolest line i ever heard! Do you mind if i borrow it?

Wow, that's the coolest line i ever heard! Do you mind if i borrow it?

Of course not, Paige. Feel free. Just riffin', that's all. When I =think= about what I write--as in my lyrics--that's another story. (My old bandmate in the Plizmos, Ken
Guarino: "=You= wanna sing this, Mike? This is =psychotic!=)

-- SPOILER WARNING --

I finally got to see this last weekend. (Becoming a dad sure changes your ability to go to the movies.) I loved it, though I'm still a bit distressed with how much they had to cut out. The books keep getting longer until book five or six, but the movies stay the same length. And they keep cutting things out that seem essential to the story to me. With the third one, I really missed the explanation of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs, who they all were, and why Harry's patronus was in the form of a stag.

More or less the same thing happened with the fourth one. Where's the explanation of priori incantatem? This is explained fairly well in the book, but in the movie they just hint that Dumbledore knows what happened, then cut away without explaining anything. I would think anyone who hasn't read the book would be scratching their heads as to why the wands connected that way.

I agree about the ending of film: very dark and very well done.

I also agree with a statement someone made earlier that the Quidditch World Cup sequence seemed a bit out of place in the movie version, especially since they dropped the whole subplot in which the Dark Mark had been cast from Harry's own wand.

Still, I have to give the filmmakers credit for distilling the plot down to the essentials pretty well and making a good movie out of it. There were plenty of things I missed -- who and what Rita Skeeter really is, for example -- but on the whole they did a good job, and I loved it.

Blake

-- SPOILER WARNING --

I finally got to see this last weekend. (Becoming a dad sure changes your ability to go to the movies.) I loved it, though I'm still a bit distressed with how much they had to cut out. The books keep getting longer until book five or six, but the movies stay the same length. And they keep cutting things out that seem essential to the story to me. With the third one, I really missed the explanation of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs, who they all were, and why Harry's patronus was in the form of a stag.

More or less the same thing happened with the fourth one. Where's the explanation of priori incantatem? This is explained fairly well in the book, but in the movie they just hint that Dumbledore knows what happened, then cut away without explaining anything. I would think anyone who hasn't read the book would be scratching their heads as to why the wands connected that way.

I agree about the ending of film: very dark and very well done.

I also agree with a statement someone made earlier that the Quidditch World Cup sequence seemed a bit out of place in the movie version, especially since they dropped the whole subplot in which the Dark Mark had been cast from Harry's own wand.

Still, I have to give the filmmakers credit for distilling the plot down to the essentials pretty well and making a good movie out of it. There were plenty of things I missed -- who and what Rita Skeeter really is, for example -- but on the whole they did a good job, and I loved it.

Blake

I agree, again, Blake with your take on things Potter.

I saw "Goblet" before reading any of the books. Then I saw it again (in Imax, I've turned into a true HP geek!) after reading books 1, 2, 3 and 4. My level of understanding between the 2 viewings is testament to everything you're saying. I did get some sense of what the movie was about on the first viewing, but only just barely. The second time around it was clear and it was also clear how much was missing from the book.

I think it's extremely difficult to adapt her books; they are so rich in detail and the story lines are convoluted. A lot has to be cut, unless we want to sit through a 7 hour film, which might not be a bad idea for those of us who have become Potter-crazed.