i thought the film was poor compared to the others, espesh the ending!![]()

i thought the film was poor compared to the others, espesh the ending!![]()
OMG HP is getting ruined, and I know its this stupid director:
Improvement, no?
what the hell was the burning burrow about
No idea tbh, there were many flaws.I think they added the burrow to replace the battle of hogwarts? Anyway, they had Hagrid with a wand, wasn't he expelled & he has a pink umbrella :S Also, the Millenium bridge was built in 2000, yet HP6 is in 1996 so that is another flaw that they have where they destroyed the bridge. And some scenes were just random and they hardly made reference to Half Blood Prince. I think this was the crappest film yet
I wanna see it but some ppl say it's crap lol. Ive read all books; dunno if film is betterWill wait for Orange wednesday haha
![]()
No idea tbh, there were many flaws.I think they added the burrow to replace the battle of hogwarts? Anyway, they had Hagrid with a wand, wasn't he expelled & he has a pink umbrella :S Also, the Millenium bridge was built in 2000, yet HP6 is in 1996 so that is another flaw that they have where they destroyed the bridge. And some scenes were just random and they hardly made reference to Half Blood Prince. I think this was the crappest film yetThe only flaw with it is they changed the ending. But to be honest I think it was better like that, it ended on a sad, emotional note because Dumbledore had died which is why it would have made no sense to put a massive fight scene in. When you are reading a book you have time to be sad for Dumbledore before the fight but in a film there isn't time for that since its only 2 hours long so a fight scene would have been completely out of place. As for the Bridge argument, that's ridiculous. In the book they sank the fictional Brockdale bridge and in the film it was replaced by the millennium bridge which is real so people can relate to it more and it has more impact.
The only flaw with it is they changed the ending. But to be honest I think it was better like that, it ended on a sad, emotional note because Dumbledore had died which is why it would have made no sense to put a massive fight scene in. When you are reading a book you have time to be sad for Dumbledore before the fight but in a film there isn't time for that since its only 2 hours long so a fight scene would have been completely out of place. As for the Bridge argument, that's ridiculous. In the book they sank the fictional Brockdale bridge and in the film it was replaced by the millennium bridge which is real so people can relate to it more and it has more impact.It didn't help, you don't know much about the actual story, there's less detail, about horcruxes and harry's mission. And if they had split scenes and kept going back and forth, maybe it would work I dunno or at least a small one since it didn't add effect and you lost interest. The bridge, I'm just pointing out how the times are out of place and why would you want to relate to the Millennium bridge its just a bridge. Although, I think that the Millennium bridge simply replaced the brockdale one as no reference of a name is made. I just think key details were missed. They could've created an emotional note and missed out some of the pointless scenes they had. They should've put in the funeral and the fight scene, and gotten rid of the burrow attack, some small scenes & others. Also, maybe not put the above in, but at least make the scene where they are in the cave more believable I admit that some parts were tense although some I wasn't gripped. It wasn't great, and a lot of people agree.
They should have started it like the book. Albus talking to the prime minister
Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!