RT's Trailer Analysis: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

evil pixie on 07-31-2008 10:28 AM

I can't wait for this movie; it will be exceptionally dark as the "war" between good and bad begins in earnest. It will be interesting to see these memories Dumbledore has collected. This movie is a lot of flash-backs and light on the action, so I see they're presumably adding more action scenes into the movie.

reapermad on 07-31-2008 10:38 AM

This is going to be so amazing. These movies keep getting better and better!

kenekgo on 07-31-2008 10:57 AM

SPOILERS!!!!

I read on harry potter fan site that the Gaunts are not going to show up in this installment, wich I think is awful. That memory is crucial not just to understand the means of little Tom's conception but also his feelings regarding his ancenstry. According to the site, the official casting list emitted by Warner Bros there were no sight of any of the Gaunts. No Merope, no Marvolo, no Morfin.

Also absent from the film are Fleur and Billy, so it seems that Greyback's fury has to go to another member of the Weasley family: Arthur Weasley.

agnutti on 07-31-2008 01:27 PM

Stupid.

oneangredwarf on 07-31-2008 02:29 PM

that sucks!! i was just saying that to a friend they better put the gaunts in there, maybe they;ll jsut talk about them? i hope so! and that really sucks that bill and fleur wont be in it either, the movie looks awesome tho
-liz

charma_10 on 08-1-2008 09:36 AM

While it has been confirmed that the Gaunts aren't physically present in the film, it has also been confirmed to an extent that them, and their backstory in relation to the horcrux is discussed in the movie, ensuring the viewer has a full understanding of Voldemort's past.

McFU on 07-31-2008 11:11 AM

One thing I am curious about the lack of Harry in the memories. I thought that Harry was actually in the memory watching as a third person. In GoF he lands in the seat next to Dumbledore and someone reaches through him because he is not actually there, but is visually represented on screen.

adnanaltaf on 07-31-2008 11:12 AM

Though I won't deny that the trailer was decent... they should have shown more of the other characters. Yes they've reduced the memories meaning no gaunts and yes Arthur would have to endure that fate which was laid out for his son in the book.

Warner Bros shouldn't have made scenes not in the book. Walden Media did the same for Narnia: Prince Caspian by adding that scene when they attack the castle. Fans weren't happy with that even though I liked it but then I haven't read the book. Seeing this happening with Harry Potter... Dunno how it'll turn out.

Messor on 07-31-2008 12:11 PM

Attack on the Burrow.... This has to be the worst bunch of idiots i have seen they are supposed to attack hogwarts. This is an example of why i knock the fifth movie and the third so much because they change things and it takes away from the story. Honestly, i have to ask Would anyone sit down and watch a 3 hour plus movie?

julianthereddevil on 07-31-2008 12:22 PM

The ARE going to attack Hogwarts, genius. But that's the climax. This scene will be added around the halfway mark. It's a "pacing scene", because there's hardly any action in the book until the finale, so this will provide some action for the more casual viewers, who need such scenes to keep their interest in the film.

crazybstrdphil on 08-4-2008 03:11 PM

Yes, I would. The longer, the more they put in...the more they put in, the better!

Eric T. on 05-6-2009 06:03 AM

yes I would! And besides, Rowling loves the attack on the burrow, it helps create a visual on what the enemy is doing for the audience. I think it's going to be bloody brilliant!

Floor Man on 07-31-2008 01:07 PM

I don't know if it's just me, but this movie seems to have a rather...yellow tinge. Hmmm.

mgtli on 07-31-2008 01:39 PM

i don't know if it is me, but hasn't the Harry Potter series died out a long time ago. I mean the books were okay but the movies were just stupid.

TheIceGhost on 07-31-2008 01:41 PM

Judging by the money this franchise rakes in, I'm pretty sure it's just you, mgtli.

bondfreak on 07-31-2008 02:25 PM

Yes the fifth movies grossed the most worldwide since the first one came out in '99. They just keep getting darker and darker, i didn't think they could get darker than the Goblet of Fire and they did. And for the people complaining about how all the big details were left out of the books, plz stop, or go try and make an adaptation youself, then you can complain.

martinscorsese25 on 08-1-2008 02:25 AM

dude.. the first one came in 2001

thefilmmaker on 07-31-2008 02:26 PM

everytime im so weary of all the things they are going to mess up in the movies, due my being an ardent fan of the books. david yates has said that they will reduce the amount of time spent on memories, which is a flipping travesty. he said it bogs down story, but IT DOES NOT. seriously it never ceases to amaze me how much they're willing to butcher the stories. and im not one of those fans who thinks the movies have to be carbon copies. capturing the mood is the essence, and i think the film that did that best was the third. its my favorite of the films, while being the least attached to the books. i really wish this series could have found its Peter Jackson so the films would be made half from a fans perspective. people have to realize some **** changes, but we should have films that can be true to the books, if not for every storyline, for most of them. i think its a travesty theyre cutting out fleur and bill...how are they going to make this right in the final films? also they cant do something to Arthur because its just not fair. I can't see Jo Rowling having been to keen on this adjustment.

crazybstrdphil on 08-4-2008 03:16 PM

TO: thefilmaker

Have you made an adaption of a 652 page book? When you have, come back and post another comment. David Yates is probably the best director for this series. If J.K. Rowling didn't like what THE WRITER did then she would have said. Everyone blames Yates when its not his fault; its the producers. He has a boss too.

IrreducibleKoan on 07-31-2008 02:37 PM

The... gaunts won't be in the film? Then, how are they... What will they...

Man, that brings up a lot of worrisome questions.

southwick on 07-31-2008 03:40 PM

It never ceases to amaze me the arrogance shown by some screen writers...sure you are going to do it better than the author of one of the best selling series of all time.

Dear lord at least attempt to base the movie off of the book.
This book has one of the most poignant endings imaginable, it doesn't need a ton of action to make it interesting.

Ultimately the thing that bothers me most about alot of the HP films is not the subtractions, but the additions. It makes the parts that I know are missing seem so much more obvious when I have to sit through scenes that were never in the story.

/frustrated.

relox on 07-31-2008 04:07 PM

what I dont understand about adding in these extra action scenes, is why do they not think that purely telling the story as it was written will not be good enough for the film, when the book was so successful?

and why are all those characters cut......i dont understand...it cant be a budget issue because obviously WB would be bale to pay for these characters, and if it is because of time, then that is just ridiculous, why *** in new scenes that arnnt in the book, while deleting important characters, can someone explain.

D.M.L. on 07-31-2008 04:49 PM

I don't get all the people who whine because of one added scene, for Christ's sake people, it's a movie adaption. Movies based off books do this alot, and I can't help but wonder, why do some of you hold LOTR in such high regard, when it did much of the same? I love the idea of a added scene of the Burrow being attacked, I don't exactly want to see a copy of the book (a la Chris Colombus Potter films), I want to see the director let his imagination flow with the story. Both Cuaron, Newell, and Yates have all done that, they stay true to the plot but bring their creative take to it. People who hate that, lack an imagination and shouldn't be seeing these movies anymore.

relox on 07-31-2008 05:33 PM

yeaaaa hes letting his imagination flow.....hes adding one scene...Guillermo del toro is someone who lets his imagination flow.....not adding 1 scene to a book adaptation.....thats just changing things for the sake of it

screenwriter-70 on 05-31-2009 10:00 AM

Well said! I second that sentiment!

Joseph M. on 06-25-2009 08:50 AM

Yeah it's a movie adaptation but that still doesn't get rid of the fact that leaving out the gaunts in this movie is a hard blow to hardcore Harry Potter fans considering they play a big role in this movie.. I mean seriously I didn't mind the changes in Order of the phoenix but to have the burrow attacked in Half-blood prince is kind of stupid because their was so much build up over Malfoy and the final attack on hogwarts. I think it is just an interruption in the story building process of the whole thing.

relox on 07-31-2008 04:09 PM

that blocked word was supposed to be add, i missed the d's and hit the s's by accident

t1111t on 07-31-2008 04:17 PM

Stop making judgments on a movie based on a teaser trailer and rumors on a fan site. When someone merely mentions the absence of the Gaunts others take it as hard fact and make judgments on how crappy the movie will be. Of course the screen writers cut stuff out, they have to because books and film are two completely different mediums. I got so sick and tired of detractors hating on Order of the Phoenix because they "cut so much stuff out". If they included everything single little subplot and secondary character from the book, then you'd have an 8 hour Spiderman 3 where so much crap is jammed into a 2 hour movie with no clear narrative. I have no problem with the writers altering the story or leaving out some characters. They've got at least four new characters to establish with limited screen time: Slughorn, young Tom, Lavender, and Greyback. Omitting Bill, Fleur and several others is necessary to keep the movie from getting bloated and confusing. I think it's a great idea to add some action scenes and cut a few flashbacks. I don't need to know every damn thing about Voldemort. Sometimes ambiguity is more frightening.

Firelocke P. on 12-6-2008 08:50 PM

Changes galore seem to abound in this movie:
As according to Wikipedia, and backed up by numerous other articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_(film)

Quote:
"There are a number of changes from the book in the film. Much of the book's ending has been changed, with the Battle of Hogwarts and Dumbledore's funeral being removed. Heyman commented that the end battle was removed to "[avoid] repetition" with the forthcoming adaptation of Deathly Hallows. The funeral was removed as it did not fit with the rest of the film. The collapse of a Muggle bridge (which is only mentioned in the book) acts as the opening sequence. All but two of the memory scenes, including that of the Gaunts, have been cut. Only the flashbacks of Tom Riddle at the orphanage and Riddle asking Slughorn about Horcruxes remain. Yates noted: "We're making a decision right now to compress those a wee bit, but we've still got some really cool ones." Characters who are cut include the Dursleys and the Muggle Prime Minister, but Quidditch returns."

D.M.L. on 07-31-2008 05:20 PM

I also want to say, if the Gaunts aren't in the film, then how the hell does Dumbledore get the ring in the movie? I think it's possible for them to be in the movie.

relox on 07-31-2008 05:36 PM

Im pretty sure that all the characters in discussion arnt in the film, i dont think they are rumors considering that the film is already finished and coming out relatively soon, if they were rumors im sure that Wb or someone high up on the project would defend them

AragornA192 on 07-31-2008 05:37 PM

LOTR is a prime example of how screen writers who truly care about the source material will do a great job no matter what. There's a reason each of the movies were nominated for best adapted screenplay and a reason why the third took the Oscar. While Harry Potter is alright I feel as if scenes are added and cut for commercial enjoyment. LOTR was made in such a way as the new scenes were indistinguishable (spelling) from the originals. I refuse to think that a director who has no part in the screen play of a movie truly thinks he is getting his vision across. The only Harry Potter movie that I believe does any sort of justice is The Prisoner Of Azkaban. Argue as much as you would like but the kids actually actyed in this one and the adults were just as great as in every other. With the exception of the new Dumbeldore. That is another story. Having said that- The new movie looks promising.

relox on 07-31-2008 05:42 PM

To start off, the LOTR movies are probably the best movies adapted from a book, but a big reason for that is because they were made to be good films as well as to make money, unlike the HP films that are dumbed down and changed by adding things like totally made up acyion scenes, just to sell more tickets to those 13 year olds who like big magical explosions, i think there is a way to make money and make a great movie, like the LOTR movies, but i think it is obvious that the HP movies are purely made to cash in on another media outlet of the books, they could make totally horrible movies and people would still go on the opening night just because the name Harry Potter is in the title, and i think thats the downfall, they know their audience is garunteed.

D.M.L. on 07-31-2008 06:21 PM

Dumbed down? You didn't watch Order of the Phoenix and Goblet of Fire, did you? Order of the Phoenix especially was far from "dumbed down", it was arguably more mature than the book was.

relox on 07-31-2008 07:00 PM

I mean dumbed down as in a lot of the intricate plot details are missing from the movies, i understand it has to be done to make the movie a reasonable length but for example in goblet of fire, they totally got rid of the blast ended skwerts(sp), and the sphinx in the maze and the sphinx was liek the main hardest part of the maze, and they just changed it to......ummm krum gets possessed and harry and cedric have to fight off vines.....i dont mean the darkness of it.

D.M.L. on 07-31-2008 06:19 PM

How do you know the director and screenwriter don't work together on these films. I'm pretty sure the director has quite a bit of involvement on the script of this film. And using the oscars to prove your argument is pretty weak, like the oscars are right about everything. Sure.

AragornA192 on 07-31-2008 07:25 PM

I'm not arguing that the Oscars are right about everything. Im arguing that they do tend to recognize outstanding cinemetography (spelling). The fact is that none of the Harry Potter screen plays have been nominated while all of LOTR have. Further evidence shows that while LOTR fans will all tell you things were omitted from the movie they will still say that the movies were incredible and stand alone from the books. As a Fan of the Harry Potter Books i cannot say the same.

t1111t on 07-31-2008 09:38 PM

Who let loose the LOTR fanboy? I never liked the Potter-LOTR comparison when considering it's like comparing apples to oranges. Plus, I didn't think the LOTR movies were that good. Faithful to the books? For the most part. But that doesn't make them good movies.

I don't agree that the Potter films have been "dumbed down". Many of the plots in the books involve contrivances and random occurances that really have no chance of actually happening. You're confusing "dumbed down" for simplification. In film, you don't need five scenes when only one will do.

Zombie Zone on 08-2-2008 01:01 AM

The 2 Towers was not Nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay you idiot and The Return Of The King didn't deserve the nomination (it was nominated just as a tribute to the franchise)!

Amalgamate on 07-31-2008 05:48 PM

Geeks-the lot of you

JK Rowling approves each and every movie-if she's say OK, then it's OK...

You're gonna buy your ticket anyway so quit the bitching...

D.M.L. on 07-31-2008 06:17 PM

Um.. Hello, have you even seen the movie? You're saying they just included one scene for sake of changing things, when you have no idea how much they've changed or added outside of that. Knowing the past three films, I'm pretty sure that's not the only thing they've added.

Opening this week

Movies

New on DVD

DVD

Who's In Theaters This Weekend?

Celebrities

What's Hot on Rotten Tomatoes

News

Spotlight

Critics

RT's Trailer Analysis: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

SPOILER ALERT: We take a closer look at a minute and a half of tease.

Comments

Related Links

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Movie News

Featured on RT

Top Headlines

Related Articles

Latest Features

What's Hot On RT