Harry Potter and the Thread of Rewatch

BreakABone · 06-19-2009, 07:55 PM

This is for the two other people who expressed any interest in rewatching the Potter films before the newest, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince hits theatre, while you are free to watch on whatever schedule you want. This is roughly the timeline I have set up so it leads into the new movie.

Monday June 22nd- Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Sat June 27th- Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Friday July 3rd- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Wednesday July 8th- Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire
Monday July 13th - Harry Potter and the Order of The Phoenix

Ric · 06-19-2009, 08:08 PM

I watched them all in one day a week or so ago

BreakABone · 06-21-2009, 07:09 PM

Our first movie on this rewatch tour will be Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

The trailer for said movie.

Not really sure what to say about the movie, it introduces the characters and world to moviegoers, and is pretty much as far as I remember the most faithful movie of them all.

Ric · 06-21-2009, 07:39 PM

Why in the hell did they call it the 'Sorcerer's Stone' in America. Do they call it that when referring to it in the U.S version of the film? Has it been dubbed?

The book and name of the film here in the U.K was The Philosopher's Stone and thats what they call it in the movie

Why the change?

KillerGremlin · 06-22-2009, 02:26 AM

I was about to reply to this thread but Ric beat me to it. I had a torrent of the first movie, and it's "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" so I did a WTF double take.

It's funny because I first read the book back in 3rd or 4th grade, and I actually have it in my hand right now..."Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." It's amazing that the other title has escaped me until like a week ago. I guess I live in a world of ignorance.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that "Sorcerer's Stone" sounds much cooler than "Philosopher's Stone." Seriously, Sorcerer = Magic, Philosopher = Scholar who ponders shit all day.

Kids don't want philosophy, they want magic! Philosopher's Stone also implies that the book has some philosophy in it, which it really doesn't.

That said I'm psyched to watch movie numero uno tomorrow. After I get done with class and run I am going to kick back and watch it. So I'll gripe to you as I watch it on AIM, BaB.

I might bring the book with my on the train too. The first book is short enough to read in a couple of hours.

Teuthida · 06-22-2009, 05:08 AM

Yeah, that's exactly the reason.

Quote:

They thought that a child would not want to read a book with the word "philosopher" in the title and, after some discussion, the American edition was published in October 1998 under the title Rowling suggested, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Rowling claimed that she regretted this change and would have fought it if she had been in a stronger position at the time. Philip Nel has pointed out that the change lost the connection with alchemy, and the meaning of some other terms changed in translation, for example from UK English "muffin" to US English "crumpet".

I didn't learn about the history of the Philosopher's Stone until after I read the first book. Makes me sad they changed it.

I never noticed in the movie. Assumed they kept the change. Will have to see when rewatch.

Angrist · 06-22-2009, 05:12 AM

Well, I agree with the muffin/crumpet translation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muffin#English_Muffin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumpet

Typhoid · 06-22-2009, 05:32 AM

Clearly I know nothing of Harry Potter, but I think it would have been a lot better to have kept the name of "Philosopher's Stone". Who really doesn't know what it is, even in rough detail? It's way more epic than a "Sorcerer's Stone".

The Sorcerer's Stone can just...I don't know...do your laundry for you, but the Philosopher's Stone can turn metal to gold and give you immortality!

BreakABone · 06-22-2009, 10:26 AM

So I watched the movie at work last night.

1) They do change it to the Sorcerer's Stone, both visually and spoken form so assume they filmed most of those scenes twice.

2) The first movie is a rather interesting movie as if you look at it for any of the normal stuff like plot or action or character development, it is pretty barebones, but as an introduction to an unique world, it is quite a feat. Even though I've seen the movie before and read the book, it is like nothing else we have really.

3) That said... if you are looking for stuff a normal movie would have... haha it doesn't really show up until the final 30 minutes or so. And this is a LONG movie, about 2 and a half hours.

KillerGremlin · 06-24-2009, 01:00 PM

Damn the first Harry Potter movie is long. I got through half of it last night before calling it sleepy time. I should be able to knock the rest out tonight, I would have watched it Monday night but my display driver shit itself and I spent most of the night fucking with Nvidia Go 7900 drivers that are still in beta even though the fucking GPU came out like 27 years ago. Fuck.

It's so weird watching the movie because all the characters are like 10 years old. The special effects are good, the plot follows the book good but I would hate to watch this movie without having to read the book. Also, 2 hours and 30 minutes, what the hell? Wasn't the target audience for this film children?

Anyway, all the Brits will be happy to know I'm watching the "Philosopher's Stone" version.

KillerGremlin · 06-24-2009, 01:05 PM

Also, does anyone else hate the way The Dursleys are portrayed in the films? I feel like the films don't capture their abusiveness and Dudley isn't quite the fat piece of scum the books portrayed him as.

A lot of times when I watch a movie the actor that portrays the character replaces the image of that character I had previously made up in my imagination. As sad as it is, now when I read Harry Potter I see cinema Potter in my head.....

Well, I don't see the cinema Dursleys in my head when I read the books. My brain prefers my version of them.

I do enjoy the part in the film where all the letters fly through the windows and chimney and door. That was well done. Yay!

Angrist · 06-24-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

A lot of times when I watch a movie the actor that portrays the character replaces the image of that character I had previously made up in my imagination. As sad as it is, now when I read Harry Potter I see cinema Potter in my head.....

Well, I don't see the cinema Dursleys in my head when I read the books. My brain prefers my version of them.

I have yet to re-read The Lord of the Rings after the movies, but I really wonder what I will 'see'. I don't really like the movie Frodo, Aragorn, Gimli and some others.

KillerGremlin · 06-24-2009, 01:19 PM

I think Frodo and Sam were trying to come out of the closet during the film.

"Ohhh Frodo"

Angrist · 06-24-2009, 01:43 PM

Ha, I think you're actually the first one to make that joke!!

BreakABone · 06-24-2009, 10:40 PM

Being that I saw the movies first, most of the characters were designed in my head before I read about them.

Though starting from Goblet of Fire on-ward that has changed especially with people like Luna and Tonks. Curious how part 6 will handle some of the characters and stuff, and Dumbledore's cursed hand.