Wayhey for Harry Potter !!!!

[Vavara the Hag]

Must see movie of the year!!

We went to the advance preview showing tonight of HP and the Philosophers Stone and it was 2 and a half hours of excellence!!

Jase and I thouroughly recommend it so go on, go see it ASAP :D

[VonDarkmoor]

I too went to a late showing preview at Warner Bros on saturday. Deliberately choosing a 9:30 pm performance suprising did not avoid the (brat factor)!!! anyway, the film was 2.5 hours long, was really good, but seemed very disjointed, i went with Johno who hadnt read the book who agreed it seemed to jump around between scenes.

The other bonus was that i got to see the "fellowship of the rings trailer" which definitely looks amazing and is IMHO going to be the film of the year.

I was pleasantly suprised that not too much was altered from the book, more like same outcome of an event just different situation. (cant say anymore or i will spoil). But then again, it would have been really unwise to not remain true to the book, what with also the fans who know the book inside out.

The real star in my opinion was actor who played "Ron Weasley" he was a real character and added to the humourous sidekick factor. My favourite bit in the movie must have been the Gryfindor vs slyverin quidditch match. Totally wicked.

Would recommend it to anyone who wants some light humour even if you have or havent read the books.

[BadMushroom]

Hmm, Harry Potter. I never read the book but I saw the movie....

I have to say, I really enjoyed it. I went in with my misanthropic "this is bound to be a cash-in" head on (Gummidge-stylee) and was very pleasantly surprised!

A great movie. Go and see it.

"Fellowship of the rings trailer"... Whoaaa nelly! I can't wait! But all the signs, by gum, it's going to be a corker!

[Vavara the Hag]

VonD I have to agree with you totally,the kid who played Ron Weasley was the real star for sure!

Saw the trailer for LOTR too and looking forward to that but gonna have to re-read the books b4 then and play the board game a few times too :D

Did you guys see the trailer for "Monsters INC" ?
If its half as good as Toy Story, I'll be there!

Jen

[topol_sheap]

I sawe HP at the weekend as well...

I thought it looked amazing, but I have to agree with VonD... it was a triffle disjointed, and I wasn't happy with some of the minor plot changes. Well not changes, but more movements... readers of the book who have seen the film will know what I mean...

However, I recommend it whople heartedly...

Next Lord of the Rings.... woww

[Nathan]

My kids have been planning on seeing this for our annual Thanksgiving Day movie for quite some time. That was actually one of the reasons I decided to go ahead and finish the series (recommendations from you guys and Stephen King were the other reasons).

Whereas before I was dreading it, I'm really looking forward to it now! smile.gif

What would really be cool is if they were to continue on and do the later books as well. Anyone heard anything about the possibilities of that?

...and is the name different over there? It's The Sorcerers Stone here...

[topol_sheap]

Yeah I heard they start filming the next on 19th November 2001... how's that n8???

[VonDarkmoor]

in reply to Jen:

yep saw the trailer to mosters inc, something like 15 times whilst waiting in the foyer. looks really amusing, the old monster in the closet business. although im intrigued to know what was in the gas cylinders that were being plugged into the door portals???

in reply to n8:

apparently the term "philosopher" was changed to sorcerer for the US screening, something to do with the possibility of it not being understood by your average US audience (read it on the official HP website)... thinking about it should really be the alchemist's stone. if you have read the book you might follow this idea?.

oops almost forgot to post this:

if your a fan of the books, i can certainly recommend the UK unabridged audio cd's of HP.. Ive got all 4 books and i can certainly say that stephen fry does a great job with the voices. IMHO its better than the film any day.

[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: VonDarkmoor ]</p>

[Nathan]

So is the book called The Philosopher's Stone as well?

I must say, their reasoning for changing it doesn't make much sense to me. I've seen evidence of it before, but I never really thought we were seriously thought of as that ignorant. Maybe I should pay more attention to intercontinental stereotypes, eh?

[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: Nathan ]</p>

[VonDarkmoor]

its ammusing the intercontinental language difference if even slight. im sure that its a marketting thing, sorcerer sounded better than philosipher???????

if your interested:

light changes to the book between the US and UK editions. i.e. phrases and words that didnt quite fit.

barking (uk) = off his rocker (us)
on about (uk) = talking about (us)
bogey flavoured (uk) = booger flavoured (us)

etc..

heres the US covers

US covers (http://www.9cy.com/members/hol/country4.htm)

heres the UK covers

UK covers (http://www.9cy.com/members/hol/country5.htm)


the original the reason the books were changed slightly by US editors can be read in this article.

US edition of books (http://www.hpgalleries.com/c117.htm)

potter mania strikes!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nathan]

So you're telling me that the word philosopher has a different meaning over there than it does here? Well that makes more sense then. I thought you were saying they just thought we were too daft to understand "big words".

I always thought it meant a thinker or one who seeks enlightenment pondering the workings of...well just about everything! One who philosophizes! (Is that a word?)

[DaveStrorm]

N8,

To be honest, the only reason I would have understood the term "philosopher's stone" is because of Colin Wilson's book. Being an HPL (hmm . . . that's suspiciously close to HP) fan, I had been given Wilson's The Philosopher's Stone to read several years ago. I had to do some research then to understand what that title meant. BTW, don't know who here has read this book - any opinions? I liked it much better than The Mind Parasites. Wilson also wrote The Space Vampires (may have had a different UK title?) which was used as the basis for the 80's movie Lifeforce.

I also have to agree with VonD - I like Alchemist's Stone better.

After all the endorsements here and the NBC special on the movie I saw on TV over the weekend, I'm definitely looking forward to the movie. You all might even have convinced me to read the books. smile.gif

[VonDarkmoor]

heres the actual J K Rowling quote: for the reason for the title change. I knew i had it some where kicking around. smile.gif tongue.gif

Why is book one titled "Sorcerer's Stone" in the US?
"Arthur Levine, my American editor, and I decided that words should be altered only where we felt they would be incomprehensible, even in context, to an American reader. I have had some criticism from other British writers about allowing any changes at all, but I feel the natural extension of that argument is to go and tell French and Danish children that we will not be translating Harry Potter, so they'd better go and learn English. The title change was Arthur's idea initially, because he felt that the British title gave a misleading idea of the subject matter. In England, we discussed several alternative titles and "Sorcerer's Stone" was my idea." (J.K. Rowling)

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: VonDarkmoor ]</p>

[The Bloody Lady]

hmmmmmmm, interesting film, yes i finally got round to seeing it......Ron was soooooooooo cute and Alan Rickman...*faint*

i'm waiting avidly for Lord of the Rings and Episode II though...

[Canker]

It took me awhile but I finally got around to seeing this movie. and I thought that it was incredible. Can not wait for the second installment...Chamber of secrets.... I might even read the book first this time. :D

[Vasagi]

I don't think the problem is with the word philosopher's but with the lack of Classical Education in America so Philosopher's Stone might not mean anything.
One minor thing I noticed about the US editions is that they'll often use 'that' instead of 'which'. I can't quote any examples but it occurs several times in the first book.

Also the US books have lots of pictures in them. tongue.gif

UK / US Edition Differences (http://www.primaryresources.co.uk/harry/philosopher2.htm)

Harry Potter Lexicon (http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/help.html)

alt.fan.harry-potter FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/hpnewsgroup/bookdif.htm)


If that whets your appetite for US/UK words then try these:
A humourous list of UK/US language differences (http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/britguid.html)

Dictionary of American & British Usage (http://www.peak.org/~jeremy/dictionary/dict.html) Not the most cutting-edge reference work on the subject but the introduction covers the stereotypes from both sides.

This one's more up to date.
United Kingdom English for the American Novice (http://www.hps.com/~tpg/ukdict/index.html)

And finally...
Potter fans argue the toss about cupboards (http://www.og-man.net/mogmogb/mogmsgs/315.html)

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vasagi ]</p>

[Vasagi]

How often does it happen that the actor you cast in your mind as a character in a novel turns out to play the role in the film? Such is the case for Mark "I'll get me coat" Williams and Mr Weasley. Kewl.

[Nathan]

New movie trailer here. (http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/web/dailyprophet/index.jsp)