 | | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) Show me any book that is totally original. As a childrens book, which as you point out it is, I have to say that the series is building up to be an impressive set of books with the prisoner of Azkaban being my favourite so far. Yes of course, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) to (...) Never mind the film itself, what about the SW part 2 trailer? That was worse. SW has clearly drifted into the mainstream Hollywood bracket, with all those earth-bound shots of scenic beauty and lovey-dovey romantic diversions. Pah! (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
(...) oo-er :) (...) yes the very same. It was over a character from the book of death, but he's not going to sue now (I checked) whoo hoo 15 days till Fellowship of the Ring -- James Stacey ---...--- www.minifig.co.uk #925 - I'm a citizen of (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
"James Stacey" <james@minifig.co.uk> wrote in message news:GntA1M.2HD@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) <snip> The same Neil gaiman of "Sandman" fame? Why's he suing? I for one will not be seeing the Harry Potter movie or reading the books. Why (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
| |
| | Re: Saw the movie today! (bit OT)
|
|
saw the film last night and words fail me in a family newsgroup like this to adequately describe how dire it was. If it was indeed as close to the book as some say I'm suprised its only Neil Gaiman who is (apparently) suing. There wasn't one (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
