I recall a recent thread about how the third movie in a movie series usually
sucks (Spider-Man 3, Godfather 3, Batman Forever. It occured to me that the
Potter series probably escaped the curse. You kinda make my point, though. I
have no idea where to place the Harry Potter movies. I saw "Order of the
Phoenix" for the first time, recently, and I felt like I had already seen it -
probably because the books and the movies cleave to a pretty rigid structure.
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Justin Mohareb <justinmoha...@...> wrote:
>
> Not sure where you're going with this, Rave. The third Harty Potter
> film was Prisoner of Azkaban, which was the best of the Potter films.
>
> If you did see Order of the Pheonix recently you probably did see it
> before.
>
> Justin
>
> On 2009-07-20, at 1:35 PM, "ravenadal" <ravena...@...> wrote:
>
> > It can be argued that "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is a
> > better movie than either of the first two movies Chris Columbus
> > directed. Beyond that, can it be suggested that the Potter movies
> > benefit from each being a translation of a fully-fleshed novel? The
> > James Bond ("Goldfinger" is a heck of a triple) and the Bourne
> > Identity franchises also seem to benefit from their lineage from
> > actual novels.
> >
> > By the by, I saw "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" the
> > other night and I sat there thinking, "Haven't I seen all this
> > before?"
> >
> > ~rave?
> >
> >
>
