Nah, I think this is now a reality of the HP phenomenon, and I accepted it fully when the third film kicked giant amounts of ass (it's also my favorite book: 3, 5, 6, 1, 2, 4). They've done a reasonable enough job of editing the books in a way that, even though they're sometimes drastic, they've maintained the same tone and followed the same storylines through out all the films thus far. So as a huge HP book geek, at this point I have no problem embracing the films as being a different part of the same world. Maybe some people will never visit both places, but I don't believe that makes one any more or less valid than the other. It's still Harry Potter.

Yes! Or Peeves saluting Fred and George. That shit was awesome.

Hahahhahahaaa!! So I go to the bookstore, right? And there are lines everywhere, they had people "sorted" by last name. I went to the local small guy, and there was SOOOO many people there, 500 at least, but it was really well organized. Anyway, my last name starts with an S, right? There were 12 people in the Q, R, S line! Hahahaahaa!! I walked past so many WAY TOO SERIOUSLY pissed off people on the way out. Aahhhhh geez. Good times, good times. Off to read it! Woo!

I will say this about Phoenix... They might have cut out half the book (the INTERESTING half, no less...), but Evanna Lynch was perfect for Luna Lovegood. Absolutely perfect.

Other than that, this movie was a steaming pile of hippogriff shit, as far as the Harry Potter movies go. They need to start splitting the books into two movies.

*sigh*

I was watching BBC News 24 last night and watching CROWDS of people in central London, swarming to get the new book. Apparently it sold 12 million copies as midnight hit. You'd think it was the second coming, or something - it's one of the most flagrantly ridiculous sights I think I've ever seen. I love lots of stuff, but queuing from midnight? In costume? Oh deary me. Having once worked at a bookshop where it opened at midnight to sell the HP books, I can tell you, it's just painful to experience.

I was just about warming to Harry Potter (I liked film 5) and then this book came out, and now it's all in your face coverage along the lines of 'if you don't like Harry Potter then there's something seriously wrong with you' from the media and the most insane amount of hype the world has ever known. The book is of course going to get insanely good reviews, largely because the people reading it don't want to believe it could be anything other than. I think I heard NY Times say it was an epic ending 'worthy of Lord of the Rings'.

I was just starting to like it, too...

Or it could just be a good book. The books have always, with the exception of maybe book two, been very good. And it's not like the anticipation made the Star Wars prequels reviews good. My point being, you don't know, and it's silly to let other people's silliness affect your views.

The first one and the second are fairly kiddie. I started the first with the express purpose of hating it, and knowing that the fantasy books I read as a kid (Chronicles of Prydain springs to mind) were so much better. And I was feeling fully superior at first - the opening of the book is a straight Roald Dahl knockoff (Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia could easily have been traded with Aunt Spiker and Aunt Sponge, Harry traded with Matilda or James) - but by the middle of the book, you'll undoubtedly be hooked if you liked the movies. I can't fully justify it. Something about the books is extremely addictive.

The only stumble, as I mentioned, is the second. The book is similar to the movie, in that it reads like the same basic idea. And there are some really noticeably clunky plot devices. But if you decide to read the books, you could, if you wanted, start with the third. That one, while being the best of the movies, is where significant things start getting left out. And my impression of book five was that Rowling had consciously decided to make the book as unfilmable as possible, so people would know they were missing out on something.

Point being, if one was too kiddie, you might want to start on three. If you've seen the first two movies, you've missed out on a little, but not horribly much. Not to imply that I think this is terribly important or that Harry Potter books are the must-reads of the century. They aren't, but they're fun and getting a new one to read in your hands is always a treat.

Draco is a constant irritant in all the books. The importance of his character varies somewhat from book to book, I don't remember all of the details. But yes, he had a lot more time on stage in the book Order of the Phoenix. I believe he spent some time abusing his role in the Inquisitor's staff, where the movie simply shows him joining up and pretty much ignores him from then on.

But really, as fragmented and loose a conversion as Order of the Phoenix was, I did like it quite a bit, and I don't see how you could possibly turn the book's 800-some pages into a single child-friendly movie without doing the sort of wholesale stripping of stuff that they did.

I'm certainly not going to chide you about that. I had exactly the same idea at first - movies always make me happier when I've never read the source material, because the movie inevitably suffers in comparison when one has. I lasted through the second movie, and then I absolutely had to read the real thing and every bit of it they had on hand. (It didn't help that they haven't been coming out as regularly as originally predicted.) So I rather commend you on your fortitude in holding out this long.

Only two more to go!

I knew as soon as I saw the 3rd movie (which I did on opening night) that from the fourth one on, they were going to have a really hard time keeping the movies completely understandable without lengthening them... it's gotten to the point now where far too much is having to be left out. I still enjoyed it, but it was missing a lot. It would be smarter of them to just increase the length of the movies and be done with it - if my kids can sit through Lord of the Rings, they would definitely be able to sit through a longer Harry Potter movie! (They are 8 & 12, BTW)

three college aged girls were sitting outside and you don't see ANY reason to be in on that?

dude, get the cliffs notes and chat them up next time...nerdy chicks are the hotness with +12 boots of knowledge!

It's just like when Eric Clapton started singing love songs. Age does something to you. I'm pretty sure that Potter raves wouldn't have happened in Film Threat mag.

I've never read the books. I think I read a paragraph in the last book to ruin it for myself. While I agree that reading is better than watching a movie, for some reason I never felt compelled to read the potter books. When I went to see the first movie in theatres all my friends could do was bitch on how they left all these important facts out. And whereas I was glad they informed me of what was missing... I could have gone without.

I remember when Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy came out. I didn't want to watch it, because I knew with Disney making it, all my favorite parts would be left out. I went to watch it, and I was dissapointed they toned things down a bunch. Books are great for reading, but it sucks when they make them movies about half of the time. They never stay completely true to the original, and if you read the book before hand, you're usually uninterested in the movie. (Like the Da Vinci Code for another great example.)