logo Sign In

ADigitalMan

User Group
Members
Join date
26-Sep-2004
Last activity
7-Aug-2025
Posts
2,944

Post History

Post
#195201
Topic
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/195201/action/topic#195201
Time
They're releasing them every 1.5 years. It's just easier for them schedule-wise since kids under 18 have very strict filming schedules due to labor laws in Britain. As of now, Daniel Radcliffe is only about a year older than his character so at the rate they're going, he won't be more than two years older by the time they complete the series. That's certainly acceptable.

They are indeed already filming movie five with an intended release in June '07. HBP will be Thanksgiving '08 and the final one will likely be Summer '10. It would be great if they could eek it out by Thanksgiving '09 since they'll all be over 18 by then and can work adult hours. Just 'cause I like HP movies over winter holidays vs in the massive push of summer blockbusters.

Check out MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron for all your great HP news.

Oldman has FINALLY been locked into returning for OOTP after threatening to walk for lack of a contract. That's good news.
Post
#195110
Topic
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/195110/action/topic#195110
Time
Not completely. Kloves wrote to a mandated length. The original plan for Goblet was to make two 2-hour movies out of it. Alfonso convinced Newell to trim the book down to a 2.5 hour movie. Kloves wrote to that length.

Azkaban could have stood about five more minutes to tie up some loose ends.

Goblet of Fire could have stood about ten more minutes (past the length of the extended edition) to give it a bit of breathing space and to tie up some more loose ends. The Rita Skeeter subplot really needed to be completed.
Post
#194840
Topic
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/194840/action/topic#194840
Time
The movies aren't inconsistent in any way. A few minor things get changed for simplicity's sake, but not out-and-out inconsistencies. That's one of the great things about them. But if you're a reader of the novels as we are in this house, you'll find yourself watching the movies and saying "why did they take [x] out of it?" This is more a problem since Christopher Columbus left. He may not have the eye for stunning filmmaking that Alfonso brought (or that Newell continued) but he was at least slavishly faithful to the books, which I found to be a refreshing change for the film industry.

Once movie seven comes out, you definitely should read the books though. So many great subplots that may not matter but certainly are fun.
Post
#194824
Topic
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/194824/action/topic#194824
Time
You mean, like, Rita Skeeter being an unregistered anamagus discovered by Hermione, allowing her to be blackmailed in Order of the Phoenix so that the true story about Voldemort's return would finally be written by somebody?

This movie should have been four hours long. They should've stuck with making two movies out of it, releasing one at Thanksgiving and one at Christmas, then releasing it as one film on DVD.

Or at least shooting it with an Extended Edition in mind like PJ did with LOTR.
Post
#194796
Topic
EW's 25 Worst Sequels Ever Made
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/194796/action/topic#194796
Time
Teen Wolf Too was indeed in the list. Ghostbusters II and MIIB should be on the list before Matrix Reloaded or Oceans Twelve. Their greatest crime was not living up to the original. Other than that, they're quite enjoyable. They even admitted that Revolutions was worse than Reloaded, yet stuck Reloaded on the list instead. Faulty logic at best.

P.S. Here's the list again. Read through it and you'll know what's there and what's not.
Post
#194237
Topic
Isaac Hayes Quits 'South Park'
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/194237/action/topic#194237
Time
I'm trying to figure out why Isaac Hayes even is a scientologist. L. Ron was a noted racist. He once wrote to his wife when she complained of having to get on her knees to clean the floor, "Get yourself a nigger - that's what they're made for."

My apologies to all who are offended by that word. Direct your anger at L. Ron, not me, as they're his words. Though I've seen this quote in many locations, perhaps it's best attributed to this article which originally appeared in the Clearwater Sun.
Post
#194141
Topic
Isaac Hayes Quits 'South Park'
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/194141/action/topic#194141
Time
You'll notice I haven't made any value statements on the Mormons or polygamy. For the record, the Mormons I've known -- and there have been several -- have been generally better people than most mainstream Christians. I may wholly disagree with their religious beliefs, but I can't say that their religion hasn't made them good people. Regarding polygamy, I find it far easier to support than gay marriage. Solomon, the wisest king in the Bible, was said to have a harem of 1,000 wives, so the ban on polygamy isn't biblically motivated. So long as all parties are legal adults and willing participants (i.e. no "secret" wives) I find a law banning it just another form of government intrusion into privacy. It serves no purpose other than to keep some lucky or industrious guys from hogging all the chicks while the loser from High School gets none. That guy had to go into politics and create a law in order to get his fair share.

The great irony is how many men in society fantasize about multiple female partners. I guess that's okay for a one night stand or shooting a porno, but a lifelong commitment? Stopping that evil threat is an important use of our time, energy and resources.

But getting back to the topic at hand, Scientology is just plain nuts. I'll make that value statement here and now. On the whole I'm extremely tolerant of other faiths. But unlike what I said above about Mormons and their genuine goodness in my experience, I have yet to see a Scientologist I respect, much less like. Founded by a crackpot, it's a self-help clique with a pyramid structure that is based on falsehood, paranoia, deception and greed. The religion is not spiritual. The science is not scientific. Retention tactics breed paranoia within the ranks. And the recruitment methods make it the Amway of religion.

When was the last time you saw a Scientology missionary go to the destitute section of town to help heal those who clearly need the most entheta cleared from their soul? Never. Because they don't care about the spiritual well-being of the whole world. It's about money and social status. There's a reason why the Church of Scientology is based in Beverly Hills and not Compton.

I have degrees in Psychology AND Religion. Scientology purports to be both but it is neither. Not by a long shot. Tom Cruise, you don't know Psychology. You don't know the History of Psychology. I do. You and your Scientologist buddies are a cancer on rational thinking. It is even more medically irresponsible than Christian Science, because it doesn't rely on faith to heal, it relies on falsehoods. Fellas, the lava from the implant stations ain't got nothin' on what awaits you in the afterlife. Have you no shame? Have you NO shame?