just read a breif press release in which director mike newell was complaining that warner bros. shortchanged the budget, but mollified him somewhat by giving him greater artisitc freedom. im ways i can see warner's p.o.v.: from the stills it looks like a great deal of the stuff from the last one was reused, and why not? so much new stuff was built for azkaban. he should talk to nicholas meyers. the budget for star trek: the motion picture was astronomical (paramount still wont admit just how much it cost), but the budget for the wrath of khan was a mere 6 million (iirc), and look how well it came out.

on a humerous note, apparently a good deal of digital effects work was devoted to acne removal on the teens.

Got a link to the press release...?

Also, capitilization is your friend. ;)

BUT ONLY IN MODERATION!!!

NYUK NYUK!

Huzz

WiLl tHiS dO? i ThINk SO....

José

Yes, and remember your spelling rule, it's 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' :thumbsup:

hmmm.....not quite Friday yet......

And always wipe front to back.... :thumbsup:

hey, stream of consciousness combined with gereal laziness equals all lower case....

link to news blurb (scroll down):

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-10-26/

Wrath of Khan = $11.2 million.

This one will be interesting to see, since he's abbreviating the book so much (though, really, you have to do that with such a large work). I wish I could get the darned trailer to play on this computer; I can hear the sound but the video is choppy.

I have yet to read a single Potter book. Maybe after all 7 films are done.

I'm really looking forward to this one with the even darker tone and more mature cast. As the kids age, they take on more meaty acting challenges. Harry's anguish in "Azkaban" was very well played. I look forward to each of the kids expanding their roles. I'm also anticipating Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. :thumbsup:

Who plays "Mad Eye" Moody?

it's a SHAME they didn't do a complete version of THIS STORY, as It's by FAR the best.
I couldn't put it down for 13 hours. finished 4/5 of the book in one afternoon thru early AM (11:40am or so - 12:45am)

brendon gleeson plays moody. you may remember him as the dad from 28 days later.

imdb.com is your friend. :thumbsup:

Who plays "Mad Eye" Moody?

it's a SHAME they didn't do a complete version of THIS STORY, as It's by FAR the best.
I couldn't put it down for 13 hours. finished 4/5 of the book in one afternoon thru early AM (11:40am or so - 12:45am)

Recently, I saw that they aired an extended version of the first two Harry Potter films on broadcast stations. About an extra 30 minutes of footage was added (not including commercials). I suspect, after the last film is made and the editors have the time, a complete boxed set of director's cut films will be released with much of the previous deleted scenes restored like they did for the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Still, it'll be hard to fit all of the latter novels into even a 3 hour film if we were so lucky to get all of the material restored.

The book was amazingly good. I really wish more of it could have been included in the film....perhaps a 2 parter would have been better, in that respect.
After reading Prisoner of Azkaban, the movie (though good) fell so far short of the book in my mind. It felt really rushed to me, story wise.

I've always looked at movie versions of books as the Classics Illustrated of our day. If you've read the book, the movie just brings it up to a visual level.

If you want to get the whole story, you just have the read the book. It's seems unfair to to say, "well, they left that part out" or "I didn't like the way they depicted that character or that scene." I mean, the point of books is to give you the whole picture, isn't it?

I've read the book (and I'm re-reading it now) and I'm looking forward to seeing the illustrations when the movie is released.

Jim