Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

I'm with you, Dude. I didn't like the changes at all. Some are to be expected, certainly, parallel to the story. But changing just for the sake of change so some one-shot director can pee on the tree irritates me. IMO, the series is more important than the director.

I thought the casting of the new Dumbledore was awful -- didn't fit the character in the book at all. It was nearly as bad as casting Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan. Okay not that bad, but Lord, it wasn't good.

I thought they did a very decent job with a complex storyline, but at the same time, I think those who didn't read the book won't understand a lot of the subtleties of the movie, particularly regarding the Marauder's Map and Harry's Patronus spell.

 

i finally saw, my sis took abbey last month so i took her today...

good points hasbeen. my only real problem was how they changed the design of hogwarts and the grounds. i thought that was stupid.

i liked the rest though.

 

what were the subtleties? i'm curious.

 

i didn't like how they basically blew off the whole thing about how the four guys were all friends when they were kids in school. that was a big part of the book, i though.

 

yes especially since the marauder's map had their code names on the cover.

 

The Marauders' Map was created by:

James Potter (Harry's dad) - a.k.a. "Prongs"
Sirius Black - a.k.a. "Padfoot"
Remus Lupin - a.k.a. "Mooney"
Peter Pettigrew - a.k.a. "Wormtail"

Remus was a werewolf, and the other three were unregistered animagi (people who can turn into animals). Their nicknames reflected the animals they change into. James Potter turned into a stag (elk), which is why Harry's patronus charm took the form of a large white elk. Sirius Black, the big black dog (which he chose to keep Remus from hurting anyone), and Peter Pettigrew was the large rat.

The four were friends at Hogwarts, and James in particular bullied Snape to no end, which is why he hates Harry so much.

 

The stag element got almost no play in the movie, which was indeed disappointing.

 

i was wondering about the stag thing with that spell.

but in terms of the other things "left out" i think it's actually better that way. now, i haven't read the book, but i find that when you spell everything out you lose a lot of depth. look at the first star wars movies -- dead end references to places that aren't followed up on. then the next slew comes out and it's all about filling in the references from the first movies. the result is a flat, undynamic story.

tolkien is another example. i believe that the silmarillion was simply notes for the hows and whys of the lord of the rings trilogy. i don't believe it was ever meant to be published.

 

I think the hermonie part didn't get proper treatment. She's supposed to be getting worn out by the time travel, making her quite bitchy, etc. Instead it seemed to be there just to have a reason for the ending. That really was a big part of the book.

It was miles ahead of the last movie though. That was terrible.