The Sorcerer's Stone?

[flar7]

did you like it?


I havent read the books yet, but thought the movie was very cool.

:boing::boing::boing::boing: 4 :boing:'s

[Xois]

i have read all the books...they are all great!

[SnowStar]

I just saw it this afternoon, and while it is a good movie, it doesn't follow the book exactly. Being a details person (and having read the book multiple times myself) the discrepencies (and there are A LOT) drove me batty and I couldn't fully enjoy the movie because of them. I probably will see it again so I can just enjoy it without trying to follow along in the book in my head. When Fellowship of the Rings comes out I'm going to see it THEN read the book, that way it won't bother me. And speaking of movies that are nothing like the book...what about the Postman? OY! Good movie until I read the book...
I guess you can't expect much from movies based on an exact book...I'm also interested in the made for TV A Wrinkle In Time that is supposed to be on I think ABC in February. Granted I haven't read that book in years...

Anyway...I'm rambling...

[flar7]

I know what you mean, I hope. I loved the Postman w/ Kevin Costner, so naturally I wanted to read the book. Big mistake, the book was terrible. I couldnt tell how they got such a cool movie from such a horrible book.

Like I said, I liked the movie alot, prob. more because I havent read the books. Yet.

[Chibi-Fallon]

I think my problem will be I don't follow the book enough. A lot of J.K.'s descriptions I don't like so I just change them. Like Mr.Evil Boy (forgot his name) did not look like a pre-teen Spike (give him some teeth and he'd be all set, I swear). That bugs me to death! I'll probably go see it but I have a feeling I'll be disappointed.

[Pheonix]

I loved the book, mt little brother forced me to read it, and wow I couldn't believe caught up i was in a children's story! I going to go buy the rest of them!
I might see the movie, but I agree, seeing a movie after I've read the book sucks.

[UnSolon]

The Sorcerer's Stone???? What's that...? :) j/k... Other than in the United States the book is "Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone". Arnt you guys special, you get your own title... lol.

Anyways... I have read the books, all 4, seeing as my little sister loves them, but dont plan on seeing the movie untill it comes out in video format. Mind you, one sister is seeing it tonight, in a couple hours, and my other sister is seeing it next wednesday.

So yeah..

Peace

[HerbGurl]

Originally posted by SnowStar
I just saw it this afternoon, and while it is a good movie, it doesn't follow the book exactly. Being a details person (and having read the book multiple times myself) the discrepencies (and there are A LOT) drove me batty and I couldn't fully enjoy the movie because of them. I probably will see it again so I can just enjoy it without trying to follow along in the book in my head. When Fellowship of the Rings comes out I'm going to see it THEN read the book, that way it won't bother me. And speaking of movies that are nothing like the book...what about the Postman? OY! Good movie until I read the book...
I guess you can't expect much from movies based on an exact book...I'm also interested in the made for TV A Wrinkle In Time that is supposed to be on I think ABC in February. Granted I haven't read that book in years...

Anyway...I'm rambling...

A Wrinkle in Time is going to be on TV!! OOHH!! I Loved that book!!
:boing::boing::boing::boing::boing::boing:
Blessings,
HerbGurl

Oh yeah, I did read the 1st book, my sister's read all 4, but I haven't seen it. Maybe over Thanksgiving.

[Lavender]

The movie is Philosopher's Stone here...same as the book. I can't believe they changed the title! :rolleyes: Haven't seen the movie but eally looking forward to it. Don't spoil the ending for me! :eek: :p

[flar7]

hasty typing on my part. enjoy the mobie

[flar7]

Went to check, cause I thought it was Sorcerer's stone. And acccording to MSN, Movie listings, and the reviews it was and is listed as the Sorcerer's stone.

So was the book really the Philosopher's Stone?
In movie they say both, but mainly refer to it as the sorcerer's stone built by a famous philosopher(cant remember his name) old dude.

[UnSolon]

All you folks down in the states, all your books, and all your movie listings, and all your movie titles, will say "Harry Potter and the SORCERERS Stone".

Up here in Canada, across the way in Britain, france (etc, etc...) the book titles, movie listings, and Movie titles will say "Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone".

Dont know why they decided to change the title for the american audience (which they did when they origionally realeased the book in the US a couple years ago), but they did. Mabey they thought it would sell better in the US with the name Sorcerer than the name Philosopher. (does philosopher sound too boring, and Sorcerer sound wild and exciting [dont know, just putting out ideas]).

Well yeah... so they did... funny eh.

Peace

[UnSolon]

According to my sister and mother, and this is the same explanation I have heard a couple times actually... they changed the Title to "Sorcerers Stone" from "Philosophers Stone" in the United States, because they felt that people in the US would not understand "Philosopher". But yeah. Dont get offended folks, it wasnt my decision
Peace

[bansidhe]

ive read the books, most of them anyway, and i liked them! but i guess im still a kidlet anyways. i dont think the movies come out here yet...aus is so behind most of the time! maybe it has and im juss behind...either ways, its the philosphers stone here.

[Faery-Wings]

For those of you who saw this- Is it appropriate for a 5 yo? From the commercials I see on TV, I think my son would love it. He loves wizard stuff- he got a little Harry Potter type wizard kit last year and has a blast dressing up in the hat and cape and makes "potions." :D But I saw the trailer and thought it might be too intense for him.

I wanted to read the book to him, but I think it would take forever. I was hoping that they would have a scaled down/Younger kids version out but I haven't seen one if they do.

BB

Chris

Oops, is this OT?

[MammaStar]

Originally posted by SnowStar
I just saw it this afternoon, and while it is a good movie, it doesn't follow the book exactly. Being a details person (and having read the book multiple times myself) the discrepencies (and there are A LOT) drove me batty and I couldn't fully enjoy the movie because of them. I probably will see it again so I can just enjoy it without trying to follow along in the book in my head. When Fellowship of the Rings comes out I'm going to see it THEN read the book, that way it won't bother me...

Just be careful when you go to get any LOTR books. Buy the ones that DO NOT HAVE THE MOVIE COVERS. I'm suggesting this, because, Eshallet & I were in the store last nite we saw 2 sets of LOTR books. One with the movie covers & the other with the beautifully illustrated covers. Our impression is, the movie cover books are the "movie" version of the stories. If you want the so-called "real" story, then get the others.

I'm already aware that LOTR will not follow the books exactly. Look at Liv Tyler's character, she appears to be fighting wayyyyyy too early in the film, since when you first meet Elrond's daughter, she's at the gathering in Rivendell. Plus, who's this Lurtz guy????
And Sauraman seems to have a stronger prescense than I remember.

Oh well. I'm going to see the movie and have fun because LOTR are my favorite books EVER.

[Armitage]

*perk*
Wrinkle in Time movie?? Woot!
Haven't seen Potter yet, probably going next week after all the screaming kids aren't in there and maybe after Thanksgiving dinner.

[flar7]

during the weekdays, everyone's at school(supposedly) and the adults are at work(supposedly) so there is a small crowd not the Fri. and Sat. hordes that were out there.

[Danustouch]

Hubby and I just went to see it tonight. We had no problem getting tickets, though we originally wanted to see a 3:30 showing, and wound up at a 4:00 showing. He was skeptical about it, didn't really think too much of it before we got there...but we both LOVED it!

I hear they've already started filming a sequal....any truth to that? If so..heck..I'm there!!!!!!

It's one of those movies I could see again, and again, and again!

[MammaStar]

Well, my son saw it today and proclaimed it "a really neat movie" that he liked a lot. He started rattling off all the different parts that were funny. I couldn't catch it all, he was naming so many and so much I didn't understand. I still have no desire to see it, and as of right now, he hasn't asked to go again. BUT, if he does, I will gladly take him, provided he does his homework. ;)

[UnSolon]

Well tonight, I did NOT go see Harry Potter, however I did go see Hamlet, performed at the local college theatre (and the theatre program I graduated from). It was really good.

Just a little push, come on people, go see a play, I promise you will be able to connect to the actors on stage better than the ones on a screen.

Peace

[MistOfTheSea86]

I thought the Actor who played Harry Potter was Handsome:)

[Raindancer]

Hi, we're still waiting for HP to open here in New Zealand, Its Philosopher's Stone here to as well as the book. I was wondering what was going on when I got into a Harry Potter Website and they had it as Sorcerers Stone.

I figured it sounded more zippy to the promoters and they figured that it would sell more tickets that Philosopher's Stone. Its no secret that they think American audiences are more or less stupid. Probably think Philosopher sounds to nerdy.

My daughter's read them all about 50 times, and I'm reading it to the kids for a bedtime story now. So I haven't seen the movie and am still reading the book, but my impression of the first part is that its rather slow moving with all the introduction of the characters, but I guess its like that in that part of a book.

I plan on seeing it with them though, like my daughter would allow me to live if I had other plans LOL She just wishes there was a real Hogwarts, me too. Can anyone explain to me who's read the books, why they have the Slytherins there? They all seem to be slippery, slimey, and treacherous. Why have them there and teach them magic? Can anyone suggest why they are there?
BB
Raindancer

[Armitage]

Because you always have the crappy kids, no matter *what* school you're at. ;)

[Chibi-Fallon]

I really need to get a bunch of people together and go see that. >.< I was gonna do it last night but there was this run in with a bunch of guys with pointy sticks (like the kind they use in the Olympics not the tree kind). And we ended up talking to them for about a hour, and it was kinda creepy because I was the only girl and they kept giving me funny looks. O.o My buddy is convinced he saved my life. -.-;
Yeah one of my friends went to see it opening night and got all hyped up on coke and candy but she said it was really good, but that it needed more dialog. Someone else told me it's kinda like that new "Planet of the Apes" only good (where they changed it as opposed to redoing it, not that there's lots of monkeys trying to kill Harry ;)). Eventually I will see it. Yes..... eventually.

[MistOfTheSea86]

For me, The movie was good, but not outstanding. There are things that they left out, but I do not feel like they were the most CRUCIAL things. Just changed around a bit. And probably because they are making them all movies, so they are waiting to bring some more stuff up inthe sequel/

[stormyray]

Took the kids to the late night showing last night. Even though things were a bit changed I fell in love with it just wish they did longer dragon sceen. He was sooooooo cute so who is your fav...????? mine.... Hargrid...!! he rocks

[melantha]

Wood is my pretend boyfriend now. :D

the movie was ADORABLE. I don't remember ever seeing a movie that made me so happy to watch! or made me want it to be real so badly. I mean, cmon, Quidditch! that scene was AMAZING.

*skips around* I feel like I'm 8 again ;)

raindancer - re: slytherin... well, Harry's a doll, and remember what happened during his Sorting? I imagine they're probably not ALL bad, we just see the ones that are for effect. besides, that house's good attributes are brilliance and ambition, things that COULD be used for good, if the possessor so chose. most of them just don't.

[Raindancer]

( raindancer - re: slytherin... well, Harry's a doll, and remember what happened during his Sorting? I imagine they're probably not ALL bad, we just see the ones that are for effect. besides, that house's good attributes are brilliance and ambition, things that COULD be used for good, if the possessor so chose. most of them just don't. )

I was thinking something like that, they would be really resourcefull if not too picky about ethics. But another thing would be that this way they could keep an eye on them, hopefully weed out the bad ones but at least they wouldn't be off somewhere plotting who knows what sight unseen.
BB
Raindancer

[Rævyn Cigány]

Originally posted by Wildchild
The movie is Philosopher's Stone here...same as the book. I can't believe they changed the title! :rolleyes: Haven't seen the movie but eally looking forward to it. Don't spoil the ending for me! :eek: :p

Yeah, I was having a conversation with my mother in law tonight at the supper table about this very thing...why did they change the movie and the book title? Cathie said it was something to do with a copyright or something...I don't see the relevance, is anyone up to date on this silliness?? I think it's stupid, personally...it's like they're comfortable saying Sorcerer (aka WITCH) in the states because witchcraft is a legal religion but not anywhere else....

BB

Rae )0(
the Canadian WITCH (take that , Jean Crétien!)

[Raindancer]

Raeven, I don't think its anything that esoteric, there's only one reason these guys do anything: money. I believe that it comes down to box office. Sorcerer's Stone sounds mysterious, a hint of possible evil and scary bits.

Philosopher's Stone sounds more intellectual, and not nearly as cool. Yes its stupid, but as Homer Simpson said: " Its stupid, thats why everybody does everything" *G* The Hollywood big shots couldn't care less as long as it brings in the bucks Look at all the merchandising too, I'm surprised that they haven't come out with a line of Harry Potter toilet paper , call it "Harry Potter's Potty Paper" *G*

Sorcerer brings in more than Philosopher. Its partly a cultural thing too. Monty Python would never have been made in America either. Ah well, no point in stressing over it, I plan on seeing it when it finally comes out.

On another thing you said, I don't think that the average person really knows much about witches and sorcerers, and is pretty clueless on the subject.

I may be going out on a limb on this, but its my impression that the way that wizards/Sorcerers have been portrayed in movies and TV is that they are powerful men. Some are good and some are evil. Either way, they're very powerful and competent, and often very cool.

Witches are mostly either evil a`la The Craft, all the various Disney animated movies, Blair Witch, etc. or Sabrina, and Samantha. Fluffy Bunny time.

The Halliwell sisters in Charmed are the good guys, powerful, but often dateless and desperate on a Saturday night. Piper had to fall in love with a guardian angel "White Lighter", Phoebe with a half demon to find love, and Prue never quite finds anyone for very long. The lesson there: women who are powerful are usually lonely.

This undoubtedly belongs on another thread, but I suspect that many of the people who have problems with witchcraft do so not so much for the magick, but that there are women doing it. Women seeking power. In the end, in the popular mythology, she pays a high price by the final curtain All the witches above even the fluffy bunnies pay it. Sabrina and especially Samantha have to hide it, and usually bootleg it..

We know what happened in The Craft, especially to Fairuza Balk's character, and the price the Halliwells pay all the time. The wizards, like Gandalf don't suffer like that, only the bad ones suffer when good ultimately triumphs. Bad Sorcerer, Bad, Bad. Witchcraft may be a a legally recognised religion, but it still doesn't free women from misogynistic stereotypes. Its going to take a long time and some visible positive strong role models to wean people away from the old lies.

Off the soap box. Gods and Goddesses, I get long winded! Time to cool off these tired fingers. *G*
BB Raindancer, a male witch, not sorcerer or wizard.

[michellef]

we saw the film at one of the preview shows on November 11th and I did enjoy it. Not as much as the book (I find books made into films are just never as good), but still.
And yes, Danustouch - they are indeed already working on the sequel - I think filming started over the weekend.

BB
Michelle

[Lavender]

There's an interview with JK Rowlings in our local TV guide. She explained it because Scholastic (US) wanted to change the title when the book first came out because they thought people in the US would not know what a philosopher was & won't be able to identify with the word. :rolleyes: She let them but regrets doing that now. So because the book was titled that way, the movie was also.

BTW, I saw a Nimbus 2000 at the store yesterday. It had a disclaimer that it can't actually fly! :lol:

[Danustouch]

I want one!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flar7]

so if any of you are wondering what I want for xmas...

[maidenmoon]

I just saw it today and loved it! Only have gotten 1/2 way through the first book and now after seeing it, I have to read the others! Anyone read C.S. Lewis' books? They are the best childrens' books I have ever read. If you haven't then go out and buy one, guarantee that you will love it!:p
And speaking of books turned to film, I saw 'The neverending story' and then read the book. The movie was crap once I read the book. Definately, one of my faves! Everyone should get that one too...:D

[ElvenDragon]

I liked the movie but like someone said earlier.. there are a lot of discrepancys.

If I don't follow by the book, I would say it was a good movie except for the transitions between scenes.. there wasn't any..
Between chapters they just switched the scenes, I think that they could have done a better job if they were not rushed to release it on time.

[MistOfTheSea86]

I thought it was actually REALLY good. I mean, of course there is going to be parts that are left out or changed, but they were not things that took away from the story were they? It was basically the same, and as I watched the film I could swear I was living almost every part is what I imagined it to be. It was good, with just different parts and transitions. not something that would destroy it.

[Chibi-Fallon]

I saw it last night and did any one notice that Nearly-Headless-Nick was from Monty Python? I love that dude! He needs more screen time. :wah: And is it just me but, what philosopher makes a stone that turns things to gold and gives you eternal life? It should be the scientist's stone or the magic stonemaker's stone or something along those lines.

[willowfairy]

I could find 100 things wrong with this movie! Where the hell was PEEVES?! :p

I love Harry! It was the coolest movie even tho they left out and changed a bunch of stuff. And I doubt you guys had the same previews, I dunno... But I loved that Scooby Doo thing! I thought he was Batman!! :)

And Mist-- I agree with melantha ~ Wood is MUCH cuter than Harry! ;)

[Chibi-Fallon]

I know, I feel for it too. ^^ Is that that live action one where Shaggy is gonna be on crack (we now know why the dog talks to him ^^), Velma is a lesbian, and all that wonderful stuff? I'm kinda wondering if they scrapped that or not. I haven't read the Harry Potter book in a long time and my memory is so bad that I couldn't think of one thing different from the book. But I loved the movie it was really good. I think Wood is cuter too. ^^

[Raindancer]

" And is it just me but, what philosopher makes a stone that turns things to gold and gives you eternal life? It should be the scientist's stone or the magic stonemaker's stone or something along those lines

Äctually, I think it was the medieval alchemists who spent their time trying to discover this. The Touchstone. Thats when they weren't blowing themselves up or poisoning themselves. I guess everyone needs a hobby... LOL
Blessings
Raindancer

[SpikesPet5150]

The kid who plays Oliver Wood's real name is Sean Biggerstaff. I feel like a pedophile, but man, that kid is gorgeous!!! Very yummy. :)

I absolutely loved the movie, loved the books, love everything about both of them. :)
~Bree

[willowfairy]

:lol:

Yes, Sean Biggerstaff (odd name :)) is very yummy.

[Chibi-Fallon]

Yeah my perverted guy friends had fun with that name when we went to see it. ^^; Then we went to see Monsters Inc. That is such a cute movie! It's so sweet!

[Illuminatus]

I liked it.

But you know what? I think it could have dragged a LITTLE MORE. Yeah, I know, it dragged a BIT with an hours worth of plot playing out in TWO AND A HALF hours, and there were a lot of vivid scenes and what not... but I think they COULD HAVE DRAGGED IT OUT JUST A TEENY BIT LONGER and maybe put in a few cues like maybe the big giant guy said "OK we're dropping off the baby kid to his uncle's house, and nothing's going to happen for half an hour so you may as well just take a quick nap or something"..... then it would be perfect!

Either that, or cut about a third of the scenes to make a decent-sized movie!

[island fairy]

Hi Folks,
Ok to be totally honest I had sucessfully avoided the whole Happy Potter thing..the books..the hype... the movie until a friend really wanted to go. Hopeful and curious I went and I loved it. In fact, after seeing the show I when directly to the bookstore. I know now that the book is even more brilliant then the movie.

My suggestion for taking kids though is ask them first if they will make it through such a long movie. It was great but by the end my bum was asleep. Of course if I was a kid I would have bouced more as it was I laughed a lot.

And yes young Malfry did look like a little blonde vampire amd harry's hair wasn't messy as described in the book but....its a movie adaptation.
:boing :boing

[Skye]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but the books were great.

I was very impressed that a book aimed to entertain a young adience could be enjoyed so much by someone whos almost 40:D

[Angelwulfe]

not trrying to offend anyone but pertsonally the whole harry poteer hype is getting on my nerves. it's cute but i guess it's just to trendy for me. one thing i like about it though is taht is it shows witchraft in a good light even if it's a little distorted.