Jump to content

Home

Harry Potter and the Chamber Of Rip-Offs


Crazy_dog no.3

Recommended Posts

Let me begin by saying I am not in this thread stating that HP2 is a bad film, just, not very good.

 

I will use spoiler tags so not to spoil the "suprises"

 

 

1) All the scenes were the car is getting smashed up are clearly ripped of Jarrasic Park when the T-Rex is attacking the car with the 2 kids

2) In the bit when Tom Riddle dies, note the similiarity to Agent Smith "dying" at the end of The Matrix

3) The voices in Haryy's head were previosly in an epdisode of The X Files.

Which reminds me...

 

4) In the original Harry Potter, the two-sided head comes from the title credits of GoldenEye

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm...is this another one of those jokes stolen from lame websites? :p Well I'm going to answer them anyway, and hope I don't end up looking stoopid ;)

 

 

1) So...the T-Rex reminds you of a Whomping Willow (a tree that defends itself by smashing whatever "attacks" it)? I don't really see the similarity. Not even in the cinematography.

2) What similarity? Tom Riddle was a memory encased in a book. When the book was destroyed he was destroyed. I don't see the Matrixy resemblence. Besides, I seriously doubt "death by dissolving/blowing up" originated with The Matrix.

3) There were no voices in Harry's head. The "voices" were the basilisk's hisses coming from the pipes in the wall. No one else could hear them because they couldn't speak Parseltongue - snake language - so they couldn't undertsand anything. Besides, you really think the idea originated with X-Files?

4) Ummmm...that's just silliness. It looks like something in the Goldeneye title credits and it's called a ripoff?!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Redwing

Ummm...is this another one of those jokes stolen from lame websites? :p Well I'm going to answer them anyway, and hope I don't end up looking stoopid ;)

 

 

1) So...the T-Rex reminds you of a Whomping Willow (a tree that defends itself by smashing whatever "attacks" it)? I don't really see the similarity. Not even in the cinematography.

2) What similarity? Tom Riddle was a memory encased in a book. When the book was destroyed he was destroyed. I don't see the Matrixy resemblence. Besides, I seriously doubt "death by dissolving/blowing up" originated with The Matrix.

3) There were no voices in Harry's head. The "voices" were the basilisk's hisses coming from the pipes in the wall. No one else could hear them because they couldn't speak Parseltongue - snake language - so they couldn't undertsand anything. Besides, you really think the idea originated with X-Files?

4) Ummmm...that's just silliness. It looks like something in the Goldeneye title credits and it's called a ripoff?!

 

 

i agree redwing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Not only that tree. The spiders too. OK, the actual scene is different, but the concept is the same: 2 screaming kids in a car. There is a monster(s) outside the car smashing it apart.

2) In The Matrix Agent Smith's "death" (u never know with the Agents) was practically the same. Both were torn apart by something glowing brightly from the inside.

3) OK I didn't really think about this one.;)

4) It's true! Watch GoldenEye's theme song!

 

 

Nah this isn't stolen from some website. I thought of it myself after watching the film this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, i just saw the movie, and i have to admit, it was pretty good....they did well to incorporate the huge story into 2:45

 

anyway, one thing that really bugs me up, and i don't have the books beside me to see if this was true, but...

 

 

Why does Hermione hug harry potter and just shake hands with Ron?? That's gotta be embarassing for Ron...!! jeez

please someone answer this, if you have the book, i left my copy in india :( Is that really how it happens or...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

STTCT, well in the books they never really establish that, cuz at that time they are only 12...and i guess 12 year olds don't feel that way, or movies don't show them to be that way. Even by part 4 (when they are 14) they don't show any real signs, except a couple of time only when they are teased. But if anyone's getting teased it's usually harry and hermione...

But it just burns me out why Ron didn't get a hug, dunno why, aargh :mad:

 

 

Oh, and i saw a couple of, no, not a couple of--> many kids in the theater...whoo..it was packed. My whole family couldn't even sit next to each other :( And they kept clapping when the people in the movie clapped, and they shouted "nooooooooo" when certain things happened...

 

oh...kids are such a pain to watch movies with :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't miss much, but you might miss a few subtle facts that are established by the book and not the movies

 

for example

 

 

In the movie, if you didn't notice, all the people the basilisk attacked were muggle born, means they didn't have wizard blood in them. But they never established that in the movie, only subtly. It also shows you the kind of person Finch (the cleaner) is and his history and some useless but some useful info like that

 

 

BUt if i were you, i'd pick on from 3. It'll be boring for you to read something you already know. But mind you, it's not boring to watch something you already know ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by krkode

A good movie does NOT need to have have everything 100% original.

 

:rolleyes::o;)

 

This reminds me of my favorite quote:

You're idea was both good and original. But the part that was good wasn't original and the part that was original wasn't good.

 

I can't remember who said that. But it seems to be what Crazy_dog is talking about.

 

I just saw the first HP and didn't understand the big deal. If I was a kid I would have loved it. But it was all over the place. Scenes that didn't go anywhere. Quite annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think these harry potter movies are the kind of movies which you wouldn't understand the first time you see them, especially if you haven't read the books.

 

If you have read the books, everything will be crystal clear and a bit of the fun is spoilt. But if you haven't you might want to watch it again to understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by krkode

BUt if i were you, i'd pick on from 3. It'll be boring for you to read something you already know. But mind you, it's not boring to watch something you already know ;)

 

Hmmm...dunno. They left out a HUGE chunk of stuff in the movie because of time. Plus like already mentioned by Krkode:

 

The fact that all attacked are muggle born was better establish in the book. Alot of other discrepancies too, but I havn't read the book in years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by krkode

i think these harry potter movies are the kind of movies which you wouldn't understand the first time you see them, especially if you haven't read the books.

 

If you have read the books, everything will be crystal clear and a bit of the fun is spoilt. But if you haven't you might want to watch it again to understand it.

 

Like many situations the books are better than the movies.

But there was really no complicated themes or plot twists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problems with the movie:

 

 

1) Should have been longer. They skipped some genuinely good stuff. Like Filch being a Squib. (Although I guess that wasn't necessary, because his cat was attacked by coincidence.)

2) The ending didn't need to be drawn out like that.

3) Hermione, that was MEAN! :( Poor Ron

4) They would have done better to show the phoenix crying with Riddle was still alive. Rough quote - "Even your bird knows it's hopeless, Harry. Look, see that...he's crying..." Although Riddle was excellently done, especially compared with the unnecessary alterations in Voldemort/Quirrel vs Harry Potter in movie 1 that only served to make the confrontation somehow...less than what it could have been. =/

 

 

Crazy Dog for your last point - cinematography look-alike does not necessarily mean rip-off. Oh and I loved the spiders. They were so SCARY. :D

 

Books better than movie in both cases so far. I want one to be as good as the books though...

 

Oh! Ewan McGregor as Remus Lupin - good or bad? Discuss :D (Note-McGregor has only been approached for the role so far.

 

Me? I think it would be awesome. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one scene in which I do think was sorta a rip off was the one where the snake was chasing him through the pipes...you know the JURASSIC PARK SCENE...where he was breathing on Harry and Harry was trying not to make any sound. But I guess its classic scarey movie...but still....it really reminded me of JP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Young David

Am I unique?

 

I've never seen any Harry Potter movie or read any Harry Potter book ...

 

And I don't even care

 

What's so good about HP?

 

 

Right there with you, YD!

 

I've never cracked open the cover of a Harry Potter Novel or was even remotely interested in seeing either of the movies. I guess Harry Potter is just lost on me, of course I'm 25 and the books are geared towards a slightly younger crowd, that could have something to do with it. Oh, and the fact that Harry Potter stole opening weekend records from Phantom Menace, that just pissed me off! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...