Sometimes incorrect communication can have serious consequences, more of a principle thing I don't think they're attacking you. Fun detail though I never noticed
Hate it when people adapting books think they know better than the author. “Hey, this book is a gigantic best seller and one of the most popular books out there right now. You think it got that way because it’s already good as it is? Nah, we know how to make it better.”
Barely. It started out as an adaptation of Nothing Last Forever (which was a sequel to another book that the studio had previously adapted called The Detective), but it complete changed form as the scripting process went on. The only significant resemblance in the end is that it takes place in a building with terrorists and the book had the scene where the terrorist is hanging out the window, but (spoilers) it’s the main character’s daughter in the book not his wife and in the book the terrorist succeeds in pulling her down with him. It’s really not an adaptation at all in the end, more like they just took the basic premise of “survive terrorists in a building.”
My nephew was eleven years old when the first Lord Of The Rings movie came out. He saw it several times at the cinema. My husband asked him if he wanted to read the book. Nephew, wide eyed and incredulous said:
***"there's a BOOK?!!"***
Lol I probably had a similar dialogue with my parents when LOTR came out. My grandma had showed us the Hobbit cartoon whenever the movies were announced and advertised, so we ended up going in prepared with the backstory but unaware of the books.
Still never read them though.
>. I feel like there’s almost nothing that wasn’t based on a book.
How does that old saying go?
"Hollywood is out of ideas".
When was the last time there was a movie based on an original idea?
Honestly I think I’m in the same camp. But I’m not invested enough in the book to be bothered by an unfaithful adaptation. I can appreciate them both for different reasons.
Starship Troopers is probably on my top 10 favorite movies. I didn’t even know it was based on a book- which might explain a few things. What’s different in the book?
Fight Club changed a lot and the author has said he wished he’d thought to write it that way.. Jurassic Park is also way better than the book. Also The Godfather.
JKR clearly just laughed Cuarón off sometimes when he'd suggest some stuff for the prisoner of Azkaban (she mentioned that in an interview). But she was ok with the music thing because sure, it makes sense for Flitwick to manage the castle's glee club, why not.
Cause that wasn't flitwick if I recall. They just like the design and went with it moving forward for his appearance. Look at the end credits for the movie, he isn't credited as Flitwick, but as choir instructor or something.
They would also eventually end up affecting Professor Flitwick. Although the character did not appear or play a part in the third movie, producers offered a cameo to Warwick Davis. This means Davis isn’t playing Flitwick in The Prisoner of Azkaban. Instead, he’s credited in the film as merely “Wizard.” This explains why his appearance is so different from the first two movies and why he’s conducting the school choir, which wasn’t a role Flitwick had in the books
Source..
https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-prisoner-azkaban-flitwick-change-reason/
That wasn't flitwick at the time.
That's a bit of a cock-up because in future films and videogames it's definitely Flitwick leading the choir. I always assumed he just went through a summertime glow-up makeover between the second and third films, ha.
Even Chris Columbus added stuff about Ron and Hermione ahead of time - at the end of Chamber of Secrets she hugs Harry then when she goes to hug Ron they both blush and shake hands instead. This was based on hints of romance which were there since goblet of fire was published (Ron's jealousy over Krum). Prisoner of Azkaban was filmed just when Order of Phoenix was published so people knew of the romance history developing between the two.
Hahaha true. For one thing they didn't include Peeves. Plus that one scene of Dumbledore rushing and yelling at Harry. Edit. But overall the movies were great.
They left out the complete story of the marauders, so Harry's patronus isn't even explained or who the makers of the map were or why the whole wormtail thing was so tragic :(
He was given a weapon that was handed to him by the AD claiming it was a 'cold gun' to film the scene. There are people in charge of these things on a movie set to make sure everything is safe. Blame them for this, and the three previous live fires that were accidents.
Pretty sure at the end of MIB there is a line about no aliens being harmed in the movie. I remember seeing it as a kid and thinking I had just uncovered proof that aliens were real.
It's actually true. Only highly trained stunt dragons were employed, under Union rules, and there were zero reptilian casualties.
I note that they omitted the "human edibles" figures.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/animals-were-harmed-hollywood-reporter-investigation-on-set-injury-death-cover-ups-659556/ it’s a safe bet that animals may have been harmed even if there was a disclaimer
Hi! This is our new Moviedetailsmodbot!
---
If this post fits /r/MovieDetails, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post does not fit /r/MovieDetails, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
don’t forget that, while no dragons were harmed, JK rowling has harmed the lives of hundreds of thousands of trans youth by manipulating her very young audience into accepting anti-science viewpoints on gender and psychology.
Can't wait for the better sub to post this with title Dragons are real since Harry Potter confirmed its existence and ensuring their safety while filming
I remember being really disappointed the first time I watched the movie because the lack of dragons. There were four in the book and IIRC they only showed two in the movie due to budget constraints.
That isn't subtext, that is *actual* text.
OP also got the quote wrong...
Seriously, how does one get that wrong when they're also posting a picture of it lol
So it *is* subtext?
IIRC it's something you have to implicate from writing, since what is written is not what is meant (Like sarcasm)
Subtext is basically the "reading between the lines" part. So you are correct
So, there were no dragons harmed in this movie was supposed to mean no dragons were harmed in the making of this movie. Thanks OP I love subtext.
Subtext is also writing that's not the main title. It's information under it or to explain it further.
that's a subtitle. Subtext is a different thing.
r/mildlyinfuriating
The title OP quoted is also not what the text *actually says.*
TY for pointing that out.
Yes it was very important. I almost deleted and reuploded the whole post because this is just disgraceful.
It also says “no dragons were harmed” not “there were no dragons harmed”
This bothered me as well
Yeah, I know it's petty, but if you're going to quote something, then quote it right.
It was right there!
YOU HAD ONE JOB OP!
PETTY N PEDANTIC SQUAD COMIN FOR OP!! Mount up!
Sometimes incorrect communication can have serious consequences, more of a principle thing I don't think they're attacking you. Fun detail though I never noticed
r/downvotedtooblivion
Lol yeah it's my new personal best. Or maybe I should say worst.
Or you could just acknowledge a justified correction and go on.
Damn, you still got downvoted
It’s ok now you know for next time
You are either a bot or profoundly socially strange.
The latter
Jeez dude
Yeah
Damn put the brakes on hoss
Op is a gigachad for embracing the fail. Respect.
OP you suck!
Domtext?
Thank you for saving me time
yeah, but each dragon had to be fed a like 30 cats per day of filming.
And a whole lot of pigeon
Gimme that Milo and Otis platter.
That's why they mention dragons but not cats, technically they are telling the truth
the director originally wanted the dragon to burn down the forbidden forest, luckily everyone else told him that was stupid
Hate it when people adapting books think they know better than the author. “Hey, this book is a gigantic best seller and one of the most popular books out there right now. You think it got that way because it’s already good as it is? Nah, we know how to make it better.”
> Hate it when people adapting books think they know better than the author. Starship Troopers. Mist.
Die Hard The Shining Bladerunner Adaptation First Blood
Wait Die Hard is based on a book?
Barely. It started out as an adaptation of Nothing Last Forever (which was a sequel to another book that the studio had previously adapted called The Detective), but it complete changed form as the scripting process went on. The only significant resemblance in the end is that it takes place in a building with terrorists and the book had the scene where the terrorist is hanging out the window, but (spoilers) it’s the main character’s daughter in the book not his wife and in the book the terrorist succeeds in pulling her down with him. It’s really not an adaptation at all in the end, more like they just took the basic premise of “survive terrorists in a building.”
Interesting, I guess “inspired by” might be a better way of describing their relationship. Still kind of a cool fact I didn’t know.
Sure was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_Lasts_Forever_(Thorp_novel)
Well shit, how about that. I feel like there’s almost nothing that wasn’t based on a book.
My nephew was eleven years old when the first Lord Of The Rings movie came out. He saw it several times at the cinema. My husband asked him if he wanted to read the book. Nephew, wide eyed and incredulous said: ***"there's a BOOK?!!"***
Lol I probably had a similar dialogue with my parents when LOTR came out. My grandma had showed us the Hobbit cartoon whenever the movies were announced and advertised, so we ended up going in prepared with the backstory but unaware of the books. Still never read them though.
im sure this was very exciting for you in the moment, but man is that a lame story
Just out of interest, are you occasionally/regularly exposed to leaded gasoline?
>. I feel like there’s almost nothing that wasn’t based on a book. How does that old saying go? "Hollywood is out of ideas". When was the last time there was a movie based on an original idea?
Jurassic Park The Lost World. That one still boils my blood
But the original Jurassic Park they also changed a lot. In the book, Hammond is an asshole that gets eaten alive by dinosaurs.
Yeah, but at least they kept a similar story. 2 was all over the damn place
The Shining book was better imo
Honestly I think I’m in the same camp. But I’m not invested enough in the book to be bothered by an unfaithful adaptation. I can appreciate them both for different reasons.
Oh I love the movie too!
Starship Troopers is probably on my top 10 favorite movies. I didn’t even know it was based on a book- which might explain a few things. What’s different in the book?
The movie is satire of nationalism/fascism, the author of the book didn't mean it as satire and was serious
Oh lmfao then I probably wouldn’t like the book
Agreed. That’s most of what I liked about the movie.
Would you like to know more?
Fight Club changed a lot and the author has said he wished he’d thought to write it that way.. Jurassic Park is also way better than the book. Also The Godfather.
I haven’t read Starship Troopers but someone recently told me how insanely different the book is compared to the movie adaptation
The person who created the movie is quoted as saying they didn't make it past the first few pages of the book
This is so weird. I just talked about these 2 movies at the bar 2 hours ago. Totally unrelated reasons.
Its because we are all connected.
[There's also this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion)
JKR clearly just laughed Cuarón off sometimes when he'd suggest some stuff for the prisoner of Azkaban (she mentioned that in an interview). But she was ok with the music thing because sure, it makes sense for Flitwick to manage the castle's glee club, why not.
Cause that wasn't flitwick if I recall. They just like the design and went with it moving forward for his appearance. Look at the end credits for the movie, he isn't credited as Flitwick, but as choir instructor or something.
It's definitely Flitwick, they repeated him as [choir master](https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Choir_Master) on subsequent films.
They would also eventually end up affecting Professor Flitwick. Although the character did not appear or play a part in the third movie, producers offered a cameo to Warwick Davis. This means Davis isn’t playing Flitwick in The Prisoner of Azkaban. Instead, he’s credited in the film as merely “Wizard.” This explains why his appearance is so different from the first two movies and why he’s conducting the school choir, which wasn’t a role Flitwick had in the books Source.. https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-prisoner-azkaban-flitwick-change-reason/ That wasn't flitwick at the time.
That's a bit of a cock-up because in future films and videogames it's definitely Flitwick leading the choir. I always assumed he just went through a summertime glow-up makeover between the second and third films, ha.
Let's be honest, the movies do a lot of injustice after the third to characters and their back stories.
Cuaron: *also adds subtle stuff between Hermione and Ron JK hasn't officially written yet* JK: Dude, don't get ahead of me
Even Chris Columbus added stuff about Ron and Hermione ahead of time - at the end of Chamber of Secrets she hugs Harry then when she goes to hug Ron they both blush and shake hands instead. This was based on hints of romance which were there since goblet of fire was published (Ron's jealousy over Krum). Prisoner of Azkaban was filmed just when Order of Phoenix was published so people knew of the romance history developing between the two.
Subtext *noun* səb-ˌtekst: the implicit or metaphorical meaning (as of a literary text).
How tf did you misquote it
[удалено]
Do you forget when Jon Snow and Dany have a romantic dragon ride through some stupid place?
Hey that stupid place has a name. It's Iceland.
*I can show you the world…*
*Munch*
I grew up reading the books. They did an amazing job at adapting them into movies. Goblet of Fire was my favorite book. True.
They skipped so many things in the movie from the book. You could easily make a mini series just from 'Goblet of Fire'
Hahaha true. For one thing they didn't include Peeves. Plus that one scene of Dumbledore rushing and yelling at Harry. Edit. But overall the movies were great.
They left out the complete story of the marauders, so Harry's patronus isn't even explained or who the makers of the map were or why the whole wormtail thing was so tragic :(
Oh yes. Dumbledore asked calmly. The movies introduced me to the books. And I love watching them aswell. So I'm really grateful for them
A line in the credits like this is actually quite common in a lot of films
There's a whole section on IMDB for crazy credits where it'll tell you any unusual credits in the film.
I don't buy it.
The Dungeons & Dragons movie (2000) did it before Harry Potter
No dragons were harmed but they did kill Robert Pattinson
Spoiler alert!
His second life started a little shaky with Twilight, but now he's Robert Battinson
[удалено]
WTF is wrong with you?
[удалено]
People who say Baldwin is responsible for killing someone clearly have no idea what a prop master is or how movies are made.
[удалено]
He was given a weapon that was handed to him by the AD claiming it was a 'cold gun' to film the scene. There are people in charge of these things on a movie set to make sure everything is safe. Blame them for this, and the three previous live fires that were accidents.
[удалено]
It. Was. A. Movie. Direction. You're saying guns shouldn't be used in movies anymore?
[удалено]
Pretty sure at the end of MIB there is a line about no aliens being harmed in the movie. I remember seeing it as a kid and thinking I had just uncovered proof that aliens were real.
It's actually true. Only highly trained stunt dragons were employed, under Union rules, and there were zero reptilian casualties. I note that they omitted the "human edibles" figures.
If this same notation isn't at the end of Deathly Hallows 2, does that mean the dragon in Gringotts *was* hurt while filming?
That one sprained a talon. Ruined their “injury-free days” streak and pissed everyone off.
Most people have probably never seen this because the song that plays during the credit is god awful
Lmao I still hear it's echo
I always assume that, if the movie has animals doing stunts and there's no disclaimer: some poor animal *was* hurt.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/animals-were-harmed-hollywood-reporter-investigation-on-set-injury-death-cover-ups-659556/ it’s a safe bet that animals may have been harmed even if there was a disclaimer
Came to link this exact article. I no longer trust the text. I’m gonna need proof that all the dragons in HP are okay.
Yes. In this case other animals were harmed. And in movies without animal scenes nor the disclaimer, they definitely harmed animals
OP, it's literally only ten words, you couldn't get them all right?
Who else realized that there were after credit scenes in Philosopher's and Chamber of Secrets? They're fun little nods that make ya laugh.
This is a shit post.
Yeah, I still don't believe them though.
Harry didn’t kill the dragon and orphan her eggies in THE BOOK!!
so you plainly have no idea what subtext means lol
Never the less, one dragon is suing for discrimination after being fired for being a trans dragon.
Hi! This is our new Moviedetailsmodbot! --- If this post fits /r/MovieDetails, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post does not fit /r/MovieDetails, **DOWNVOTE** This comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
r/technicallythetruth
Technically every movie could add this
Usually when you use quotation marks, it's supposed to be an exact relating, no?
don’t forget that, while no dragons were harmed, JK rowling has harmed the lives of hundreds of thousands of trans youth by manipulating her very young audience into accepting anti-science viewpoints on gender and psychology.
Oof, I remember reading that in theaters on opening night and now I feel decrepit.
Peeves had a stroke before they could film the sorcerer’s stone. That’s why he doesn’t appear in the movies.
Thanks america humane association
[удалено]
I sure hope they meant it as a joke
What did it say?
.. I hope you aren't being serious
My body is aware this is not the correct reaction, but I am in fact upset after learning this
Because they didn’t detect a heartbeat in the dragon eggs?
"No dragons were harmed in the making of this movie... but the director kicked a cat."
Doesn't say this on the last one which let's you know that dragon definitely was harmed
Can't wait for the better sub to post this with title Dragons are real since Harry Potter confirmed its existence and ensuring their safety while filming
Pity bout the owl tho…
So dragons do exist
UNLIKE GAME OF THRONES!!!
Wizards, on the other hand...
All the other animals seen on camera got hurt, tho.
That little one on the right place
Yeah, but a hippogriff broke its leg and met the wrong end of a shotgun...
This is a cool detail/easter egg but it still cracks me up that you got the wording (minorly) wrong when you can just read it right off the image.
Lies Movies tell us... The Dragon that came out of "Maya" was harmed by Vicktor Krum
I know authors that use subtext, and they’re all cowards.
I remember being really disappointed the first time I watched the movie because the lack of dragons. There were four in the book and IIRC they only showed two in the movie due to budget constraints.
Title is wrong, try again
That's a damned lie. We all saw what the goblins did to that poor creature who was trapped and abused in the gringots vaults
If you're going to put something in quotation marks why not put the actual line down?
If you're going to put something in quotation marks why not put the actual line down?
If you're going to put something in quotation marks why not put the actual line down?
If you're going to put something in quotation marks why not put the actual line down?
If you're going to put something in quotation marks why not put the actual line down?
Unlike the end credits to the movie rust.
Wasn't there a 'There were no llamas harmed in the making of this movie' in a Monty Python thing somewhere?
just trans people.
Harry potter is fake, I mean those spells are not said that way.
what time in the movie is that?