Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 2736723" data-attributes="member: 151">A lot of the changes you suggest would have consumed more screen time; what are you proposing to cut in favor of those additions...or are you proposing the movie should be 3 hours long?Some things have ripple effects; if you introduce the 'he used Harry's wand' thread, you have to play that out, or it does more damage than good.  If you introduce Winky, then that adds a whole lot of material...and if you add Winky, the audience is going to wonder where Dobby is, adding more material.  And so on and so forth.That certainly is a part of the appeal of Harry Potter...but I'd suggest that Joshua's right, many, perhaps most viewers went to Harry Potter with the expectation of the continuing story of the Boy Who Lived.  Hogwarts is fun...but Harry's world is also full of dark, dangerous places.  I mean, in the first movie he nearly gets killed three times, at least.  In the second film, the school is stalked by a horrible monster.  In the third movie, an escaped lunatic is hunting him, his death is foretold constantly, his pet is nearly put to death and he's nearly killed by a werewolf and horrific ghosts of despair, among other things.I think you're suffering from disappointment based on expectations...but I think you missed how dark Harry Potter gets, at times.</blockquote>