View Full Version : PoA running time estimate...
Running Time Note: (2/16/04) Director Alfonso Cuaron was recently quoted as saying that this will be the shortest 'Harry Potter' movie thus far, coming in at under 150 minutes (less than two and a half hours).
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808404333
Horror whore
02-19-2004, 06:37 PM
I actually read that the runtime is only 135 minutes. I have faith in Alfonso, he has more talent than CC and he knows what he's doing.
urbanlegend23
02-19-2004, 11:12 PM
Hopefully it won't be long-winded like CoS, that runnng time sounds good though...not too long but long enough to do the BRILLIANT story justice.
The Rain Dog
02-19-2004, 11:14 PM
Am I the only one who gets the feeling this will eb the most "adapted" of the Potter films so far?
RD
urbanlegend23
02-21-2004, 04:06 AM
The first two were VERY adapted, like almost word-for-word, I don't see how you can get MORE adapted than that.
The Rain Dog
02-23-2004, 12:16 AM
Sorry - I meant to say "interperated" - less adapted.
RD:o
moviemuffin
02-23-2004, 02:06 AM
I doubt it will be interpreted too loosely. My own personal opinion is that it will actually be much more reflective of Jo's writing and spirit.
Remember she was smart when she optioned her work; she retains creative input control. She's a consultant on all the films, largely to make sure changes aren't made that would create problems in future plots. (IE: some subtle, seemingly unimportant things have to be included if they will be very significant later, some changes can't be made due to future plot developments.)
It will be completely different from Columbus' style, but I think in a direction that actually comes closer to the source material. Columbus did a great job building the sets, world, look... but blew it on the tone. The movies were still great, but not as great as they would have been if he'd understood the real power of the books.
I think this time around we'll get a much truer Dumbledore, a much more accurate tone.
My 2¢ :)
Tuukka
02-23-2004, 02:35 AM
Well, both of the first two movies needer things to be trimmed down.
I liked them both, didn't love them, but I liked them. I felt that the biggest problem so far has been that Columbus is a competent, but eventually a rather mediocre director. He doesn't have the visionary tendencies that these movied need. I think that Cuaron does have "it" to make HP3 much better.
I've read the first book and I liked it better than the film. I think that with a more focused and more freely adapted screenplay the movie could have been more "loyal" to the source material despite cutting out more.
Columbus left in all the details and got the look right, but he missed out the most important things: Heart and spirit. And to achieve those things you often have to re-organize the source material with heavy hand to capture the most important things in the most effective way for cinematic adaptation.
Tuukka
02-23-2004, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by The Rain Dog
Sorry - I meant to say "interperated" - less adapted.
RD:o
RE:
You were in fact saying it correcly in your first post. Adapting means changing the source material.
I think that LOTR works as a good example of how sometimes heavy adapting can lead to a more loyal film. A scene which just about everyone finds truly great in ROTK is the scene where the fires on the mountains are calling Rohan for aid. Althought the fires are mentioned in the book, they are in a very different context. The scene in the film is essentially a made up scene. It ignored the more wordy scene from the book and decided to do something totally else.
I felt that the scene was one of the best scenes I saw in 2003 and it was a moment in the film where the world and spirit of the book really felt real to me. The scene took me to middle-earth and stirred up the emotions, despite being 100% made up.
It's a good example of how sometimes in order to loyal to the spirit of the book, it's better to ignore the source material and create something totally new.
Dare I say it: The invented scene was much better than the original one.
Arathon
03-10-2004, 03:42 AM
150 or 135 mins are fine with me. All I want is a great, engaging, fun and dark Harry Potter film.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.