In the end, I give it three-and-one-half out of five cans of Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper.

Well, would three and a half cans of real Dr. Pepper be better? Would three and a half cans of original formula Dr. Pepper bottled in Dublin, Texas since 1891 -- be better than Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper?

Inquiring minds have to know.

Well, would three and a half cans of real Dr. Pepper be better? Would three and a half cans of original formula Dr. Pepper bottled in Dublin, Texas since 1891 -- be better than Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper? Inquiring minds have to know.

In my best fake New Jersey accent:

"Diet Cherry Vanilla Dock-tuh Pep-puh is duh nec-tuh of duh Gawds!"

Nuff said.

Expelliamus!

*POOF*

Mike out

I agree with that EXCEPT for "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," directed by the amazing Alfonso Cuaron. It is by far and away the best of the Harry Potter movies. I can watch it again and again and again, and I have. It's lyrical, provides the information you need to follow the story, and Cuaron is, well, a magical director, just perfect for a Harry Potter movie.

After eschewing Potter for years, I became a Potter maniac in my old age. I've read all the books at least twice, some three times. I've seen all the movies twice and "Prisoners of Azkaban" about 10 ten times.

Well, I have also read and own all of the books to date. My sister even put the last one on hold for me. But, I have to disagree about TPOA movie. To me, it's the worst of the movies to date. All sorts of info given at wrong times by things not even in the book, then he gets his broom at the end of movie! He originally got it at Christmas as in the book, but in the book he gets to play with it for the last half of the book. The third did have good directing but all in all, it's my least favorite because it seems the most...hmm..I can't think of a good phrase or word for it. I guess I'll just settle with, the most messed up of them.

Well, I have also read and own all of the books to date. My sister even put the last one on hold for me. But, I have to disagree about TPOA movie. To me, it's the worst of the movies to date. All sorts of info given at wrong times by things not even in the book, then he gets his broom at the end of movie! He originally got it at Christmas as in the book, but in the book he gets to play with it for the last half of the book. The third did have good directing but all in all, it's my least favorite because it seems the most...hmm..I can't think of a good phrase or word for it. I guess I'll just settle with, the most messed up of them.

You seem to be more upset that the movie didn't precisely following the book, rather than critiquing the movie as an entirely different form of entertainment - and whether it was an entertaining movie or not.

How long does it take you to read a book? Probably more than two hours.

...
How long does it take you to read a book? Probably more than two hours.

By that logic, we could say 'The Keep' was a great movie, for the book takes much longer than 2 hours to read, even for a fairly fast reader while re-reading it. Yet we all know that isn't true.

The key is what the screenwriter chooses to keep and what they choose to leave out. I don't know what the choices were in the movie in question here, since I've not read the book nor seen the movie, but I =am sure= that how well it was adapted is dependent on how well the screenwriter sussed the essence of the story.

In 'The Keep' Michael Mann didn't suss the essence of the story at all - he didn't like the story originally (from what I've read) and didn't capture it, much to our chagrin.

Perhaps the criticisms of the current HP movie have to do with the same idea, as opposed to merely concerning itself with how long it takes to view/read the same story.

Then again, maybe I'm just talking out of my rectal orifice.

Marty

Well, would three and a half cans of real Dr. Pepper be better? Would three and a half cans of original formula Dr. Pepper bottled in Dublin, Texas since 1891 -- be better than Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper?

Inquiring minds have to know.

Yes. And, more to the point, I have some of that Dr. Pepper.

It helps to live close to Dublin....

LD
who graduated college some 10 miles away from it as well......

You seem to be more upset that the movie didn't precisely following the book, rather than critiquing the movie as an entirely different form of entertainment - and whether it was an entertaining movie or not.

How long does it take you to read a book? Probably more than two hours.

It's not that exactly. It's got all the really importand things, but they also left a few things I would consider important. When characters aren't saying the right lines sometimes it bothers me. Also, it bothers me when they botch up the story line. In the third book the new broomstick plays a bigger part of the story and he certainly doesn't get to keep it right after leaving school. If you haven't read the book, it would be an awesome movie. That's why after seeing the first Amityville Horror movie and the remake then reading the book, I agree with dad saying it's good if you haven't read the book. Whoever it is that actually rights the screenplay, they like the add things that weren't in the actual story and change things. I think in the end they actually ruin the story.

By that logic, we could say 'The Keep' was a great movie, for the book takes much longer than 2 hours to read, even for a fairly fast reader while re-reading it.

That's a faulty argument. A movie includes much less material than in a book, and that is a given. When your major criticism of a movie is that it didn't include things from the book, that is also a faulty argument. That was my point.

Movies and novels are entirely different art forms and should be judged independently of one another, on whether they are good and bad based on the standards of that medium.

For example, it the heroine is blonde in a novel and a brunette in the movie, that doesn't make it a bad movie.

Yes. And, more to the point, I have some of that Dr. Pepper. It helps to live close to Dublin.....

I ordered four cases of Dublin Dr. Pepper recently (two cans, two bottles). Boy, though UPS charges really add up! Most are still in my fridge.

That's a faulty argument. A movie includes much less material than in a book, and that is a given. When your major criticism of a movie is that it didn't include things from the book, that is also a faulty argument. That was my point.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but you still can't condense an eight hour read into two hours without leaving something out. In other words, I agree.

The best novel-to-"movie" adaptations I've seen were in the mini-series genre, and they were five hours long. So ordinarily, if I've read the book, I expect to be disappointed by the movie. But sometimes I'm not. Disappointed that is.

Movies and novels are entirely different art forms and should be judged independently of one another, on whether they are good and bad based on the standards of that medium.

For example, it the heroine is blonde in a novel and a brunette in the movie, that doesn't make it a bad movie.

True.

And if some of the characters are composited as was done in THE GREAT ESCAPE. Or left out as was done in PERSUASION. They were still darn good movies, and remained faithful to the books.

Ken V.

Well, I have also read and own all of the books to date. My sister even put the last one on hold for me. But, I have to disagree about TPOA movie. To me, it's the worst of the movies to date. All sorts of info given at wrong times by things not even in the book, then he gets his broom at the end of movie! He originally got it at Christmas as in the book, but in the book he gets to play with it for the last half of the book. The third did have good directing but all in all, it's my least favorite because it seems the most...hmm..I can't think of a good phrase or word for it. I guess I'll just settle with, the most messed up of them.

I honor your impressions of Prisoner of Azkaban. However, few, if any, of the Potter movies cleave to the books. Alfonso Cuaron, a brilliant director, took liberties as did every other director of the Potter films, but he made something magical. His direction was unique among the assorted Potter directors; he elevated an ordinary Potter film to an extraordinary level. It is a fine film, whether or not it is a Harry Potter movie.

Books as long as the Potter novels should not be condensed into one movie. The books are rich in detail, and we know the devil is in the details. We Pottermaniacs need the details. Since the producers have opted to make only one movie per Potter book, we are left with less than the whole. It's really a shame.