The Official Thread For: Harry Potter & The Order Of The Phoenix

Rate the movie

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
SapphirePrima said:
I'm I the only one who notices that these movies aren't set in the same years as the books? :confused: Their clothes are too current.

I think the movies take place in the 2000s. In the first movie, I noticed that the Daily Prophet that Harry is reading has the year 2001 on it.
 
I'm not sure the actual year matters that much. I mean, clothes haven't changed that much since the 90s.
 
SapphirePrima said:
I'm I the only one who notices that these movies aren't set in the same years as the books? :confused: Their clothes are too current.
I thought the books were based in the same year as they were written...
What bothers me about the clothing is theres no difference between muggles and the magic world population. That was one of the cool idiosyncrasies I always found fun about the books that was portrayed incorrectly in the films.
 
1991 - Book 1
1992 - Book 2
1993 - Book 3
1994 - Book 4
1995 - Book 5
1996 - Book 6
1997 - Book 7

That's when they are set.
 
So basically they start off from the year she started writing them.
I dont think there is really a noticeable difference between 1991's attire and 2000+ attire.
Do you have a specific example, SapphirePrima, so we can see what you mean?
 
the films might not see the exact year as being such a significant detail. It doesn't seem like one to me either
 
7Hells said:
I thought the books were based in the same year as they were written...
What bothers me about the clothing is theres no difference between muggles and the magic world population. That was one of the cool idiosyncrasies I always found fun about the books that was portrayed incorrectly in the films.

One of my favorite scenes in the entire series, is at the Quidditch World Cup when Harry sees all the Wizards trying to wear Muggle clothes and failing horribly.
 
Matt said:
One of my favorite scenes in the entire series, is at the Quidditch World Cup when Harry sees all the Wizards trying to wear Muggle clothes and failing horribly.
I know, I loved that contrast in the books and was actually looking forward to it in the movies :(
 
Julie Walters Talks Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Mrs. Weasley knows a lot, maybe even Alfonso Cuaron returning to the franchise? JewReview.net recently sat down with Julie Walters to talk about her new film, Driving Lessons. In the film, she plays a former actress, who is befriended by Rupert Grint.

A little different from their characters in Harry Potter, where they play mother and son – and we couldn’t go without asking about working on the newest in the Potter series, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Of course, she couldn’t spill any magic beans to us, but we did find out a bit more than we expected.

She’s currently done shooting the film, but Rupert, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and the rest of the cast are still in production in London – “Toiling away” as she put it. But just like the book, Ron Weasley’s parents are much more involved in the film. “Oh yeah, Christmas; we have a very good Christmas,” she said. “The sets are fantastic; Mark (Williams), who plays Mr. Weasley, said they made his hair stand up on the back of his neck when he walked into one of the rooms. They’re just so beautiful, they’re amazing.”

And working with new Potter director, David Yates, has been fabulous. She mentioned David brings a new style and feel to the set compared to Chris Columbus and Alfonso Cuaron. “He’s very unassuming; they were in a way, Alfonso was, but he’s fantastic. [David] is very into the emotional truth of it, the kids absolutely love it; he’s very sweet and kind, and very, very into the story like a child is. And he’s really into the emotional depths, and he’s really fantastic, he’s a lovely man.”

And David sets a different vibe on set as well. “It’s great, cause they all like him, and that’s important; he doesn’t shout or anything like that. There always is when there’s a different director; it’s very easy going. And it was always with Chris, and with Alfonso, it was just different ways. [David] is very unassuming, but he really knows his stuff.”

We also asked Julie about those rumors about Alfonso returning for the next film. “No, I haven’t seen him; but it’d be lovely if he did, because he’s brilliant. Mrs. Weasley has not been informed. She knows a lot, she does.”

As for the final Harry Potter book; JK Rowling hasn’t finished writing it just yet, but that didn’t stop Julie from wanting to give her a few suggestions. “I think Mrs. Weasley, in book seven, and film seven, should defeat (Lord) Voldemort, with some help from Harry and the others.”

We’ll have to wait till next year to really find out what happens in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix; it opens in theaters July 13th.

But you can catch Julie and Rupert in Driving Lessons in select cities starting October 13th; it’s rated PG-13.
 
Mr Lex Luthor said:
[David] is very into the emotional truth of it, the kids absolutely love it; he’s very sweet and kind, and very, very into the story like a child is. And he’s really into the emotional depths, and he’s really fantastic, he’s a lovely man.”
That sounds exciting!
Sounds very character driven, I love movies like that.
GoF didnt have enough of it so Im glad to hear this.
Hopefully, with his direction, some of the younger actors will get a bit better.

Thanks for the info Mr Lex Luthor :)
 
Dr. Fate said:
I thought Hermione was supposed to be plain looking, which = ordinary. She is not pretty (unless she works at it), she's not ugly, she's not remotely unique in her apperance, she's just sort of there. That doesn't really come across with Emma, but like you say, appearances don't seem to matter these days.

I always thought that she was more of an odd looking girl, rather than plain. Big bushy hair, beaverlike teeth would suggest odd to me. I supoose she would look less odd as she got older, due to when she got her teeth shrunk in the books.


I hope Cuaron comes back, I honestly feel he's brought the best vision to Potter so far and would love to see him do HBP.
 
OtepApe said:
I always thought that she was more of an odd looking girl, rather than plain. Big bushy hair, beaverlike teeth would suggest odd to me. I supoose she would look less odd as she got older, due to when she got her teeth shrunk in the books.
To each their own. I thought Luna wa smeant to be odd looking, what with her odd taste in jewelry and what not.

I hope Cuaron comes back, I honestly feel he's brought the best vision to Potter so far and would love to see him do HBP.
Yeah, I liked Cuaron's approach too.
 
OtepApe said:
I always thought that she was more of an odd looking girl, rather than plain. Big bushy hair, beaverlike teeth would suggest odd to me. I supoose she would look less odd as she got older, due to when she got her teeth shrunk in the books.

I always thought she was just sort of normal looking (you know, how the majority of people are pretty good looking) but then she was such a know-it-all in the begining no one even thought of her that way. The once their horomones really kicked in the guys started to notice her more. While Emma Watson is deffinatly too pretty for the part, everyone in movies is too attractive for the characters they play.
 
Dr. Fate said:
To each their own. I thought Luna wa smeant to be odd looking, what with her odd taste in jewelry and what not.

thewhitequeen said:
I always thought she was just sort of normal looking (you know, how the majority of people are pretty good looking) but then she was such a know-it-all in the begining no one even thought of her that way. The once their horomones really kicked in the guys started to notice her more. While Emma Watson is deffinatly too pretty for the part, everyone in movies is too attractive for the characters they play.

I always thought of Luna as quirky, as in she has done to herslef her odd appearence. Butterbear cork necklace, raddish earrings, wand behind her ear, that kind of thing. Which would give her a quirky appearence but not odd physically. Hermione I always thought of as kind of odd looking with her hair and teeth. I suppose she could be described as plain, but with her hair and teeth, that always came as odd to me.
 
They should use the look they used in the first two films for Prof.Flitwick. I hate the new look :cmad:
 
The_Vision said:
They should use the look they used in the first two films for Prof.Flitwick. I hate the new look :cmad:

New Flitwik looks like Hitler :eek:
 
Yeah, I am not a massive fan of new Flitwick. I would prefer it if they went back. Like Matt says, it's mini Adolf.

Possibly an attempt to clone Adolf and it went wrong, ala Austin Powers.
 
I don't think they will change it back. In fact, I think JK Rowling prefers this Flitwick's look.
 
Warwick Davis played Flitwick in the Harry Potter film series. He also played the goblin bank teller in the first film. During the first two films, Flitwick is an old half-goblin with a big white moustache. In the third film, this same character does not appear, although Warwick Davis plays another, different, character, a short human with brown hair and moustache, not very similar to the Flitwick in the previous movies. This character, the chorus conductor, is identified in the credits as "Wizard" and not Flitwick. Davis was hired because Flitwick had no role in the story, but the producers wanted him nonetheless. The character reappeared in the fourth movie, with the same make-up and still being the conductor, although in a speaking role. His make-up was not returned to that of the first and second because Mike Newell, director of the fourth, liked the younger-looking Flitwick better. He was not named in the movie, but was seen eating at the staff table and was identified in the credits as "Filius Flitwick", suggesting that Flitwick is also a music conductor. It is of course possible that Flitwick, who lives in the magical world and works in a highly magical setting, could simply favor changing his appearance every once in a while.

J.K Rowling said[4]: "I must admit, I was taken aback when I saw the film Flitwick, who looks very much like a goblin/elf (I’ve never actually asked the filmmakers precisely what he is), because the Flitwick in my imagination simply looks like a very small old man.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Flitwick
 
Stewie Griffin said:
Warwick Davis played Flitwick in the Harry Potter film series. He also played the goblin bank teller in the first film. During the first two films, Flitwick is an old half-goblin with a big white moustache. In the third film, this same character does not appear, although Warwick Davis plays another, different, character, a short human with brown hair and moustache, not very similar to the Flitwick in the previous movies. This character, the chorus conductor, is identified in the credits as "Wizard" and not Flitwick. Davis was hired because Flitwick had no role in the story, but the producers wanted him nonetheless. The character reappeared in the fourth movie, with the same make-up and still being the conductor, although in a speaking role. His make-up was not returned to that of the first and second because Mike Newell, director of the fourth, liked the younger-looking Flitwick better. He was not named in the movie, but was seen eating at the staff table and was identified in the credits as "Filius Flitwick", suggesting that Flitwick is also a music conductor. It is of course possible that Flitwick, who lives in the magical world and works in a highly magical setting, could simply favor changing his appearance every once in a while.

J.K Rowling said[4]: "I must admit, I was taken aback when I saw the film Flitwick, who looks very much like a goblin/elf (I’ve never actually asked the filmmakers precisely what he is), because the Flitwick in my imagination simply looks like a very small old man.".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Flitwick

Yeah, I heard that on an ep of Mugglecast a while back. It's a bit silly, but new Flitwick does look really odd.
 
I really hate it when characters change actors between sequels. It's just obnoxious.
 
I assume s/he was referring to Warwick Davis when he changed from a goblin bank teller in the first film to Flitwick to a chorus conductor AND to Flitwick again, as posted above.

I hate the new Flitwick look, too.
 
thewhitequeen said:
While Emma Watson is deffinatly too pretty for the part, everyone in movies is too attractive for the characters they play.
With the exception of Rupert Grint.
 
7Hells said:
So basically they start off from the year she started writing them.
I dont think there is really a noticeable difference between 1991's attire and 2000+ attire.
Do you have a specific example, SapphirePrima, so we can see what you mean?

Well I don't know what they were wearing in England but the clothes in the movie aren't what people in the US were wearing in the 90's
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"