Harry Potter movies

edited June 2008 in General Chat
we all remember what happened when j.k Rowling game Warner brothers 100 creative control the first movie was good but then it started to get a disaster.

Comments

  • edited May 2008
    Really? I sort of think those movies improved a lot when Chris Columbus quit.
  • edited May 2008
    we all remember what happened when j.k Rowling game Warner brothers 100 creative control the first movie was good but then it started to get a disaster.
    I dunno, I didn't really like the first two. The later ones were much better in my opinion, though the third is still my favourite.

    But then, I've never read the books. Maybe they ruined something that I'm not aware of.
  • edited May 2008
    sock-fox wrote: »
    I dunno, I didn't really like the first two. The later ones were much better in my opinion, though the third is still my favorite.

    But then, I've never read the books. Maybe they ruined something that I'm not aware of.

    Harry Potter and the order of phoenix was pathetic they cut 75% of the book and it was the largest children book in history 900 pages instead of making 2 films of order of phoenix their making a 2 film part harry potter and the deathly hallow. Plus order of the phoenix was a very dark film.
  • edited May 2008
    I know we're straying off topic, but having read all the Harry Potter books (starting the first one before the movies were even announced), and also being a regular movie-goer, I have to agree a little more with Tabacco.

    The first two HP movies had a lot of the books' plotlines in them, but they lacked soul and magic, and were far too long and poorly paced.

    HP3 was a much better film - lean, well paced, good cinematography and not too long. Darker edge too.
    HP4 (the best of the books, IMO) was a good enough film, but still dragged a bit.

    HP5 is the worst of the books. It might be 900 pages long, TomSuperman, but in those 900 pages NOTHING HAPPENS! It's terrible. The only plot worthy stuff is in the last 100 pages. That said, I'm stupendously amazed at how good the film compares. They cut out 99% of the crap of the book, all of the tedious subplots and just got to the meat of what happened in the book - and it made the film somewhat watchable!

    HP6 (book) is also long and tedious - 800 or so pages and it's 99% backstory, and not plot! HP7 was a much better book, and did well at pulling together loose plot threads from the previous books as well as introducing new information to drive its plot forward.

    I will still see the remaining films, but I still reckon getting Alfonso Cuaron back would be a good move. David Yates (HP5) is supposedly directing the remaining films, which may be OK, I guess, but I think Cuaron captured the dark edge needed...

    So, about those Bone movies?
  • edited May 2008
    Molokov wrote: »
    I know we're straying off topic, but having read all the Harry Potter books (starting the first one before the movies were even announced), and also being a regular movie-goer, I have to agree a little more with Tabacco.

    The first two HP movies had a lot of the books' plotlines in them, but they lacked soul and magic, and were far too long and poorly paced.

    HP3 was a much better film - lean, well paced, good cinematography and not too long. Darker edge too.
    HP4 (the best of the books, IMO) was a good enough film, but still dragged a bit.

    HP5 is the worst of the books. It might be 900 pages long, TomSuperman, but in those 900 pages NOTHING HAPPENS! It's terrible. The only plot worthy stuff is in the last 100 pages. That said, I'm stupendously amazed at how good the film compares. They cut out 99% of the crap of the book, all of the tedious subplots and just got to the meat of what happened in the book - and it made the film somewhat watchable!

    HP6 (book) is also long and tedious - 800 or so pages and it's 99% backstory, and not plot! HP7 was a much better book, and did well at pulling together loose plot threads from the previous books as well as introducing new information to drive its plot forward.

    I will still see the remaining films, but I still reckon getting Alfonso Cuaron back would be a good move. David Yates (HP5) is supposedly directing the remaining films, which may be OK, I guess, but I think Cuaron captured the dark edge needed...

    So, about those Bone movies?

    Many people didn't like Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix film because it was very dark.Maybe it was suited to a TV series.Point is that they would probably do that to the largest bone book and they weren't given 90% good review for the films despite the massive budget while many low budget films are liked better than harry potter and i do mean many.
  • edited May 2008
    When books get made into movies, things get cut. If they didn't cut anything the movie would be overly long and some stuff just doesn't work well on film. Just because stuff was cut out of OOTP doesn't make it a bad movie.
  • edited May 2008
    Yeah but why make a 2 part series of the half blood prince instead of order of the phoenix.?
  • edited May 2008
    They aren't making Half-blood Prince into two parts.
  • edited May 2008
    Since this has drifted so far off topic, I've moved these posts to a new thread.
  • edited May 2008
    xChri5x wrote: »
    They aren't making Half-blood Prince into two parts.

    Of deathly hallows.
  • edited May 2008
    They're not making Half-Blood Prince into 2 movies. They're making Deathly Hallows into 2 movies.

    EDIT: Damn you Eh! Steve! I was too late!
  • edited May 2008
    Being an obsessed HP fan, here's my two cence.

    The 1st 2 films are good family films but not great movies, when they brought in the new directors and made the series darker, it became more worth watching and closer to the books. JK doesn't hide the darknress of reality just because it's a kids book, thats one reason why kids love it so much. She doesn't bullshit them.
  • edited May 2008
    I thought that the first two movies captured the feel of the books extremely well.
  • edited May 2008
    They do I suppose, seeing as the first too are more light hearted.
  • edited May 2008
    They do I suppose, seeing as the first too are more light hearted.

    You'd call Voldemort's head coming out the back of Quirrel's light hearted? :p

    In my opinion, HP5 was is the best film so far. The whole direction of it was excellent, especially Harry's nightmares and going in his and Snape's mind. It also sounds awesome in the cinema.
  • edited May 2008
    5 felt too much like "Oh crap, we only have two hours to squeeze all of this stuff in. Alright people, don't shy on the newspaper segues!"

    I think 4 did it best. (Although the book is still infinitely better, of course.)
  • edited May 2008
    It was a very wrong thing to make a 2 part series of deathly hallows (which is a very controversial book) instead of order of phoenix.I mean why make a film of it in the first place it is big enough to have its own 52 episode TV series and a behind the scenes special.Since the film was going to suck anyways if they were only going to make one part of it why not make it as long as this film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaam-e-Ishq:_A_Tribute_To_Love
  • ShauntronShauntron Telltale Alumni
    edited May 2008
    As far as adaptations go, the HP films are fairly mild. They pretty much only omit content, which is why i'm amazed the films are as good as they are.

    Jurassic Park, for instance, might have made a terrible direct/episodic adaptation. Reinventing content to improve the film is a good thing, and the books will still be there :)


    However I will concede that so many characters die in the Deathly Hallows that it will be an absurd sapfest in a single film, so good for them for splitting it up.
  • edited May 2008
    There is more content in book 7 then book 5 which is too important to cut out. Everything needs to come together in the last one, that's why it's being split.
  • edited May 2008
    All of the HP movies prove that no one could completely replicate the astonding imaginations of a reader's mind. The first two movies were good, but the other ones did not stir up big arousals. When I went to The Goblet of Fire movie, I was excited to see Voldemort in the flesh, but his appearence was not satisfying. The Voldemort that I imagined is more scarier than the one in the movie. As for the big ball scene, the room was too small; and whats with the rock band?! That part totally ruined the mood.
  • edited May 2008
    Shauntron wrote: »
    Jurassic Park, for instance, might have made a terrible direct/episodic adaptation. Reinventing content to improve the film is a good thing, and the books will still be there :)

    Yes, but Spielberg isn't directing the Harry Potter movies :D

    Also, the rock band was referenced within the books. Personally, I enjoyed that scene because everything Jarvis Cocker touches is gold, as far as I'm concerned.
  • edited May 2008
    Darkness is probably only suited to horror.
  • edited May 2008
    AllenB wrote: »
    everything Jarvis Cocker touches is gold, as far as I'm concerned.


    Everything Cocker touches to me, turns to poop to me.

    But having the rock band makes it more like a realistic teen prom/dance. How may parties are you going to go to and there will be classical music or something playing? Hows how kids par-tay.
  • edited May 2008
    Everything Cocker touches to me, turns to poop to me.

    But having the rock band makes it more like a realistic teen prom/dance. How may parties are you going to go to and there will be classical music or something playing? Hows how kids par-tay.

    They were human and even if you were going to put them you would expect them to be very flashy and breaking all the laws of science like no gravity.Anyway the whole film of book 5 was fine.Sure some people do not like dark but when any story isn't horror and it becomes as dark as horror then it always sucks.Anyone remember lemony snicket's series of unfortunate events.
  • edited May 2008
    They were human and even if you were going to put them you would expect them to be very flashy and breaking all the laws of science like no gravity.Anyway the whole film of book 5 was fine.Sure some people do not like dark but when any story isn't horror and it becomes as dark as horror then it always sucks.Anyone remember lemony snicket's series of unfortunate events.

    what are you really saying that if a story (film, game, novel, tv show) is dark(as a horror) and not part of the horror genre it is automatically bad?

    because if you are then i disagree there are many examples of very dark mediums that are considered to be good or better by myself and others.
  • edited May 2008
    patters wrote: »
    what are you really saying that if a story (film, game, novel, tv show) is dark(as a horror) and not part of the horror genre it is automatically bad?

    because if you are then i disagree there are many examples of very dark mediums that are considered to be good or better by myself and others.

    Anyone in the 90% on rotten tomatoes.
  • edited May 2008
    Anyone in the 90% on rotten tomatoes.

    schindlers list
    children of men
    pulp fiction
    blade runner
    full metal jacket

    good enough
  • edited June 2008
    I hate horror but I like dark, dark doesn't always mean horror.

    I tried to read Lemony once but it irrated the shit out of me. Every 3rd sentance was like 'something's bad's gonna happen' well duh. Kinda of said what happened before it did.
  • edited June 2008
    I hate horror but I like dark, dark doesn't always mean horror.

    I tried to read Lemony once but it irrated the shit out of me. Every 3rd sentance was like 'something's bad's gonna happen' well duh. Kinda of said what happened before it did.
    That was the point.
  • edited June 2008
    I think Harrry Potter movies are going to keep getting worse, and worse
    The books are alot better than the movies anyway.
  • edited June 2008
    TrogLlama wrote: »
    That was the point.

    Probably was, it just annoyed me. Alot.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.