Sat Aug 13, 2005 5:24 am
Axel wrote:Weren't the other movies rated PG-13? I know I checked the dvds of the movies and they all said "PG-13".
Nope, they were all PG. Generally speaking, each book/movie gets more violent though.
Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:24 am
Yup, probably by the end a few of them will be rated 14A
Sat Aug 13, 2005 6:49 pm
At least this means it wasn't toned down for little kids, hopefully.
-crossfingers-
-crossfingers-
Sat Aug 13, 2005 6:52 pm
*wonders if Hagrid's house will move again*
Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:17 pm
Igg wrote:*wonders if Hagrid's house will move again*
Me too as well as the Whomping Willow. I hated where it was located :\
I really don't care what the movie it rated. Though the idea of a R rating for a HP movie would be quite interesting.
Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:19 pm
Well see we were thinking about when they make the 6th film- you know in the book where Harry rushes out to Hagrid's hut? How's he going to manage that quickly if he has to get down some sort of cliff first? 
Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:21 pm
hehehe He better figure out a way to use his broom or he might just as well tumble his way down.
Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:17 pm
Igg wrote:Well see we were thinking about when they make the 6th film- you know in the book where Harry rushes out to Hagrid's hut? How's he going to manage that quickly if he has to get down some sort of cliff first?
He'll end up using the zip line from "Gladiators".
Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:18 pm
I'd fall in love with the director forever if he did that.
Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:30 pm
Why is it PG-13? I mean, come on, Wormtail only kind of cut off his hand. We all know he was faking it.
...I couldn't resist.
But really, I'm glad it'll be PG-13. I quite liked it when Pettigrew chopped off his hand.
Not because I liked it, I mean I enjoyed having that in there so I could shove it in the face of people who were all, "OMG THEY'RE SUCH HAPPY LITTLE 'LET'S GO FROLICKING IN A FIELD AND FOLLOW THE BUTTERFLIES, WHEEEEEE' CHILDREN'S BOOKS!!! ~*^_^*~".
...I couldn't resist.
But really, I'm glad it'll be PG-13. I quite liked it when Pettigrew chopped off his hand.
Not because I liked it, I mean I enjoyed having that in there so I could shove it in the face of people who were all, "OMG THEY'RE SUCH HAPPY LITTLE 'LET'S GO FROLICKING IN A FIELD AND FOLLOW THE BUTTERFLIES, WHEEEEEE' CHILDREN'S BOOKS!!! ~*^_^*~".
Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:00 pm
The Wonder Weezel wrote:Its probably all because of the end of the book.... I wont say it incase somebody here STILL hasnt read it..... but because of the place Harry goes, the certain person he sees, who does that bad thing to that one kid. Yeah. That will probably have alot to do with it.
Eh, I have no idea what you just said. People who haven't read the book will probably be smart enough to not go on a Harry Potter thread.
Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:48 am
THANK YOU LORD! I am so sick of parents bringing their obnoxious little kids into the theatre so I have to listen to litanies of "I NEED TO MAKE PEEPEES" while I'm trying to enjoy the film.
Besides, little kids would be terrified of this movie. There's some pretty intense stuff in the books as well. Contrary to popular belief, these aren't children's books. I don't know about you, but I can't recall any Ramona Quimby or Babysitter's Club installments featuring dismemberment, torture, murder, or drinking the blood of a dead unicorn.
Besides, little kids would be terrified of this movie. There's some pretty intense stuff in the books as well. Contrary to popular belief, these aren't children's books. I don't know about you, but I can't recall any Ramona Quimby or Babysitter's Club installments featuring dismemberment, torture, murder, or drinking the blood of a dead unicorn.
Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:13 am
When they're in the kids' section, they're kids' books.
I though BabySitters Club was for lamewad sheltered teenagers?
Maybe I read the wrong books in my youth...
I though BabySitters Club was for lamewad sheltered teenagers?
Maybe I read the wrong books in my youth...
Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:51 pm
Fiddelysquat wrote:Contrary to popular belief, these aren't children's books.
THANK YOU FOREVER FOR SAYING THAT.
People seem to think, "Ooh, boy wizard who can save the world! LET ME READ IT TO MY TWO YEAR OLD. ^_^"
Of course, when they get to GoF and everything's all, "Mmmy, why does that bad man have a knife?" "I don't know, baby ickly dearest, let's read on!" "MUMMY WHY DID HE CUT OFF HIS HAND WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. ;_;"
"...Um. I KNOW, HOW ABOUT WE READ LORD OF THE RINGS INSTEAD?"
"OOH. YAY, ORCS AND BRUTAL KILLING!
"
The books are intended for preteens and up- eleven year olds for the first book, twelve for the second, and so on. (Er, I think.)
Yet people keep going on about how these are just perfect for their ickle little darling five-year-olds.
Yeah, sure.
Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:13 pm
Igg wrote:When they're in the kids' section, they're kids' books.
I though BabySitters Club was for lamewad sheltered teenagers?
Maybe I read the wrong books in my youth...
My sister used to read them. I never much got into that stuff. I was reading stuff like "Jane Eyre" and "A Tale of Two Cities" in 3rd grade. Although I did like Judy Blume.