Re: What movie did you last watch?
I'm working off memory, but I have read each book atleast 4 times and reread the last book just days prior to going to see the film. I don't think the book says it turned back into a stone, so without being told that it was, I would assume that it kept it's form. I'm pretty sure she describes it as being in perfect condition, except for the crack down the middle that splits the wand. Either way, there wasn't a crack, and it didn't have the rest of the Deathly Hallows symbol.
And I'm pretty sure, like 99%, that it even talks about the ring sitting on Dumbledore's desk in HBP. Harry asks about it, and Dumbledore shrugs him off and say's something like "that tale is for another day" and it's one of the questions Harry beats himself up over not asking him again after his death.
As for the diadem, I can't desribe it exactly, since she uses fictional things like gnargls and stuff like that but it has flaps over the ears. Has something that dangles from the forehead of it.
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
Can you reference anywhere that it says it's still a ring? Because the moment it pops out of the snitch, it just describes the stone. I'm not sure you're correct about this. And given that it's a ring in the 6th movie, I see no reason why they'd just change it for no reason.
Furthermore, it's called the resurrection stone, not the resurrection ring, and the implication is that one of the descendants of the family who had it eventually made it into a ring.
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Gaunt%27s_Ring
Also, what's wrong with the diadem? And why should anyone care, given that it's not as if they replaced it with a tambourine or something equally jarringly different? Looked like a woman's crown / tiara to me.Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
They could have changed the insides of the Shack in order to fit the need, instead of coming up with a totally new place to have the scene. If you're going to change it, why not change it as little as you can instead of changing the whole thing?
But it still doesn't explain why the stone was an actual stone, instead of a ring. Or why they decided to change the diadem. Or why Luna is in the Room of Requirement already when Harry and Co. show up.
I really need to stop, because I'm pretty sure I can write a couple thousand words about this.Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
I do agree with the lack of tension in scenes like that. That's how I felt about some of the more emotional (or should be emotional) ones: They just sort of happen.Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
Uh, it's a stone in the book, too; it was only with the ring until, I believe, when Dumbledore destroyed it when it was still a horcrux. I even just looked it up again in the book; it describes a stone, not a ring, at that point.Originally posted by Since86 View PostLeave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
See, I just don't understand how changing the location of Snape's death could offend someone. I read about the boathouse months ago, and the reasons why they did it were dead on. Having our heroes watch through a window as opposed to from a hatch under the floor boards in a cramped room worked much better visually. Rowling herself said it was the right choice and a larger, more striking setting gave Snape's death a more operatic feel.Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
I guess I'm gonna be the first one to say I hated HP7.2. And I mean HATED it.
I just don't understand Hollywood, where everyone thinks that they're the freaking ****. Your job is to make the BOOK into a movie. Not change the book into the movie that you want.
I'm mean the Resurrection Stone was a flipping stone in the movie.... If you can't even make the "stone" into a freaking ring then clearly you're more interested in making it your own.
I could go through it piece by piece, but that would take forever.
I understand combining things and leaving things out because there isn't much time. But when you change blantant things like the ring, or making the Snape scene in a ****ing boathouse, instead of the Shreiking Shack, then you've lost all credibility.
I mean goodness, they couldn't even make the diadem correctly, eventhough they show a damn replica in HP7.1.
I hated it. The acting sucked. There wasn't any emotional appeal. The scene with the dragon felt like they were taking a walk in the park. There wasn't any suspense at all, there wasn't any intensity, it just happened.
I know I say the same things after every movie, but damn it's so disappointing.Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
I saw HP Part 2 last night. I don't really know what to say. As someone who was 10 years old when the first book came out and is now 23, it really was like watching your childhood come to an end on the big screen, and I guess because of that I felt somewhat cheated by the ended. It wasn't as emotionally powerful as it could have been, other than Neville's speech IMO. Now maybe, I'm just expecting a whole lot because the Potter series has stretched such a large portion of my life. I dunno. It was a good movie, sure, but I feel like it could have been more. Maybe I just didn't want it to end, but the final fight with LeStrange for example was just, well it felt rushed.
Spoiler:
As usual over the past couple films, I felt that Emma Watson put both Rupert and Radcliffe to shame in the emotional moments of the movies.
I don't know, maybe I just expected too much, that's honestly probably what it was, but did any of the deaths really touch you? Because too me it was just like "oh well there's a body on a stretcher big whoop".Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
I guess it's more what they left out. I honestly think the movies, in general, would have been a lot better if they had waited until JK Rowling had finished the books before they started making the movies..as well as continuing with the same director.Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
"A lot darker" to me, the tone of the books were a lot darker...or maybe more mature.Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
I really don't get why people think the third movie was the best. I was bored out of my mind and didn't feel it reflected the books well.
And I did like the ending here, I was secretly hoping they would do what they did. It's more fun that way.Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
I don't understand the concept of them needing to be "a lot darker". Maybe they could have been somewhat darker, but a lot? I don't know about that.Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
Okay, yes, they didn't explain the map or much of anything about the previous generation, but the basic story and tone are the same. I hear people complain about stuff left out of these films, and I can sympathize, but compared to what Hollywood did to my beloved Tom Clancy books growing up, I'm not too broken up about it.Originally posted by Sookie View PostLeave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
Well, I will say, I'm completely opposite of you, I loved the seventh book, although to be fair, the only book I didn't love was the sixth book. But I couldn't stand the epilogue.Originally posted by Hicks View PostSaw the last Potter movie.
First of all, it bears mentioning that I think the sound was messed up at the Richmond theater I saw it in. I felt like the volume was about 75%-80% of what it ought to have been, and it seemed like there wasn't always music where I have the feeling there actually IS music.
With that out of the way, and acknowledging that the above probably, if not definitely, played a role, it kind of fell flat to me. Yet I wouldn't say it was bad, either.
I definitely need to see it again, hopefully somewhere with proper audio, but for now I was left somewhat underwhelmed, though I have to say there are still some nice moments.
There were emotional moments that touched me, but I felt like there were certain scenes that had the potential to deliver a 10/10 gut wrenching moment, but instead we're given about a 6/10 instead. (Particularly the part outside of the Forbidden Forest, though the bit between Harry and Hermione just prior got me to tear up a bit).
For those who are Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans, remember when Buffy has a very similar moment before she goes down to the sewer to face The Master? Sarah Michelle Geller knocks an identical line out of the park, whereas Radcliffe does not.
I'd read some reviews talking about how the movie gives plenty of nods/moments to various players, but they all seem to be kind of like a checklist; here and then suddenly done and moving on. I tend to agree, but not always. Over the last several years, as I've grown more mature, I've really come to appreciate movies that let scenes breathe, so I'm more and more turned off when things don't get to take a full breath and have an exhale, so to speak. Sometimes this movie fell victim to not letting things stretch out just a little bit.
My audience members didn't help in other cases by giggling at things I didn't think were meant to be funny, but I've had far worse audiences, too.
I dunno; I feel bad for being so negative; it's another solid effort in the series, but I can't help feeling like I got a 7/10 when it could have been a 9/10, somehow.
As I did in the book, I really liked the epilogue.
As I did in the book, I felt underwhelmed by the climactic moment.
And getting back to the F. Forest scene, they could have milked a lot more emotion out of that, both heading in, and while we're still in there. Maybe they wanted to keep things from being too dark; I dunno.
All in all, I definitely want to give this another shot before it leaves theaters so I can hopefully hear it all properly (I'm crossing my fingers for more music, which can easily stir my emotions if done well), and really I'm getting an itch to re-read at least chunks of Deathly Hallows to re-experience it in that medium.
Funny enough, part 1 stirred my emotions more than this one did. Never expected that to happen. I will say that I'd love a chance to watch it as one uninterrupted movie someday. I re-watched part 1 on blu-ray this morning to prepare, but that's not the same thing.
Oh, and I didn't get the Dark Knight Rises Teaser.
I know it's barely anything, but I love the Nolan Batman films, and I still wanted to see it. I wish they'd hurry up with getting it online (and not as a boot leg).
My problem was it ended..too much like a fairytale. Spoiler, for those living under a rock and do not know what happens.
I was, of course, hoping she'd kill one of the trio, (My pick was Hermione during the Bellatrix scene..I would have sobbed..)
But I agree with what your saying, part of the problem is, there was so much in these books..and the movies did not cover even 50% of it. I however, thought this was one of the better movies. The third movie, although almost completely different from the book, was the best movie of the bunch. And I wish that director had directed the rest of the movies. But anyway, this movie had to move in a fast pace in order to get as much as they can in.
One of the biggest problems though, with the movies, is that they often fail to represent the themes in JK Rowlings books, visually. (Sometimes even..at all..or barely.)
I also think, in order to do the books complete justice, they needed to be a lot darker. Which would have meant a higher rating, which would have meant less ticket sales.Leave a comment:
-
Re: What movie did you last watch?
I wouldn't get your hopes up on the music. I remember many scenes where it was silent, except for the sobbing I heard in the theater.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: