http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Sun, 13 Apr 2003 17:10:16 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/12/183451.php#comment-7704 I got the page count for OotP from Amazon.ca, and as I said, the page counts were for the Canadian editions. Perhaps Scholastic prints in a larger type for you Yanks. After all if they change the book titles, who knows what dark arts they might be up to? ]]> 7704@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Apr 2003 17:10:16 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/12/183451.php#comment-7699 Actually OotP is 896 and Goblet of Fire is 734, maybe thats just for the American Versions... ]]> 7699@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Apr 2003 15:48:11 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/12/183451.php#comment-7689 I saw "Chamber of Secrets" last night and enjoyed it (but then, almost anything with Robbie Coltrane is enjoyable). However, J.K. Rowlings has painted the filmakers into a corner with the inflation of the Harry Potter books. CoS was 161 minutes. Here is the page count for the books (Raincoast editions): Philosopher's Stone: 223 pages Chamber of Secrets: 251 pages Prisoner of Azkaban: 317 pages Goblet of Fire: 636 pages Order of the Phoenix: 768 pages Considering the rule of thumb that 1 script page is 1 minute of screen time, the Harry Potter movies have a problem stuffing the books into a reasonable screening time. ]]> 7689@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Apr 2003 12:00:31 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/12/183451.php#comment-7673 No, it's because Philosopher is too hard to understand. You made Dobby cry. ]]> 7673@blogcritics.org Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:33:10 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/12/183451.php#comment-7672 it's cuz Philosopher is too darn hard to spell. haha. peace. ]]> 7672@blogcritics.org Sat, 12 Apr 2003 20:53:56 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/12/183451.php#comment-7669 In most of the world, it's "Philosopher's Stone", but in the US, for some ungodly reason, it's "Sorcerer's Stone". We have to make everything difficult :) ]]> 7669@blogcritics.org Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:27:51 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/12/183451.php#comment-7668 Oh, all of you, really, you've got to read the books, since they are much better and textured than the movies. Plus there are four (soon to be five books) and they have a consistent arc, characters and style. There is a reason they have become instant classics akin to Lord of the Rings or the Madelaine L'Engle books. I've rented Chamber of Secrets for viewing tonight, but I am sure the book is better. And it's the Philospher's Stone. ]]> 7668@blogcritics.org Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:10:17 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/12/183451.php#comment-7665 yeah, i have not read the books... and i have not seen the movie... and i do not plan on doing so. hehe. peace. ]]> 7665@blogcritics.org Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:45:23 EDT