startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
What do you think of the films and why
Harry Potter films
- Thread starter startrekrcks
- Start date
I've watched all the films and read the books, apart from being a life long Trekkie I alsop enjoy the fantasy world JKR created. I guess I just love fantasy.
The first and second films are mediocre and really fail to be amazing. With Alfonso Cuaron and The Prisoner of Azkaban, it really came to life. Goblet of Fire was a step down, and I thought The Order of the Phoenix was downright boring compared to the book. Half-Blood Prince was great, though.
Been a fan of the books since 1999; even at their best, I think the film series functions best as adjuncts to that, but they're very entertaining nevertheless. And the degree to which they've managed to keep the cast together (especially the principle characters) is quite amazing and gratifying.
Of the films themselves:
The Columbus era (1-2): adapting the two shortest books, Columbus went with the safest approach given how absurdly popular the material way, including basically everything. These films aren't great, but I don't think they're as bad as some people say; they're solid pieces of commercial filmmaking, and he left a good foundation for his successors, even if the films as a whole were on the side of bland.
The Cuaron era (3): and the style promptly shows up; I still remember how amazing this film was to watch. This is the most controversial of the films among fans (and it made the least money), and, indeed, Cuaron's narrative economy is a bit too spare in places (an additional five minutes would probably have shut up most of the biggest complainers). But every subsequent film uses the sets/look that Cuaron established here, and it's a landmark.
The Newell era (4): a bit more flawed than its predecessor; on the one hand, it continues the franchise's improvements in most respects, such as the cast and the look, but it struggles mightily in adapting the most plot-heavy book until Deathly Hallows (which they decided to split in two). Not as good as 3, but overall better than the first two.
The Yates era (5-6): Yates will end up the director most identified with this series, and while his style borrows a lot from Cuaron, he's probably the best. Certainly, the writing teams did the best job with his two films so far. Order of the Phoenix is probably the best entry in the series so far. Half-Blood Prince is easily the funniest film in the series.
Of the films themselves:
The Columbus era (1-2): adapting the two shortest books, Columbus went with the safest approach given how absurdly popular the material way, including basically everything. These films aren't great, but I don't think they're as bad as some people say; they're solid pieces of commercial filmmaking, and he left a good foundation for his successors, even if the films as a whole were on the side of bland.
The Cuaron era (3): and the style promptly shows up; I still remember how amazing this film was to watch. This is the most controversial of the films among fans (and it made the least money), and, indeed, Cuaron's narrative economy is a bit too spare in places (an additional five minutes would probably have shut up most of the biggest complainers). But every subsequent film uses the sets/look that Cuaron established here, and it's a landmark.
The Newell era (4): a bit more flawed than its predecessor; on the one hand, it continues the franchise's improvements in most respects, such as the cast and the look, but it struggles mightily in adapting the most plot-heavy book until Deathly Hallows (which they decided to split in two). Not as good as 3, but overall better than the first two.
The Yates era (5-6): Yates will end up the director most identified with this series, and while his style borrows a lot from Cuaron, he's probably the best. Certainly, the writing teams did the best job with his two films so far. Order of the Phoenix is probably the best entry in the series so far. Half-Blood Prince is easily the funniest film in the series.
^A good assessment.
Columbus's films worked with the actors being so young. I think he did a good job making two children's movies.
Curan got to tackle the 'tween' year and some great characters that were introduced in the novel -and fantastic actor choices (Oldman as Sirus was inspired). He also had to tackle the change of the actor for Dumbledore, which was handled well from both director and Gambon. An overall fantastic, stylistic movie.
The Goblet of Fire is my least favourite film, but my son's favourite because it was an 'action' film (the three tri-wizard tasks) with a bit of scare at the end (with the return on Voldemort) that was stylistically, well done.
I love, love, love The Order of the Pheonix and The Half-Blood Prince (with the ending of HBP the only problematic part - the ending should have been along the lines of the novel's ending) and look foward to the last two films.
Columbus's films worked with the actors being so young. I think he did a good job making two children's movies.
Curan got to tackle the 'tween' year and some great characters that were introduced in the novel -and fantastic actor choices (Oldman as Sirus was inspired). He also had to tackle the change of the actor for Dumbledore, which was handled well from both director and Gambon. An overall fantastic, stylistic movie.
The Goblet of Fire is my least favourite film, but my son's favourite because it was an 'action' film (the three tri-wizard tasks) with a bit of scare at the end (with the return on Voldemort) that was stylistically, well done.
I love, love, love The Order of the Pheonix and The Half-Blood Prince (with the ending of HBP the only problematic part - the ending should have been along the lines of the novel's ending) and look foward to the last two films.
Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite of the Harry Potter films so far because it flows so effortlessly narratively speaking. Alfonso Cuaron injected such a rejuvenating sense of style and atmosphere and he was the first to do it. The Harry Potter world darkened with PoA and Cuaron rose to the occasion splendidly.
I would agree with this assessment. Newell also allowed the actors to camp it up in such a way that was really quite noticeable. It features some of the worst acting from even some of the elder members of the cast. It has decent pacing but it sort of feels rushed towards the third act.
I thought Order of the Phoenix was too slow. For a majority of the film not a lot happens, but that is more attributable to the novel and not necessarily a fault of the film. Half-Blood Prince was vastly superior, and Yates gives the film a sense of style & atmosphere not last seen since PoA. Yates and writer Steve Kloves wisely cut out a lot of the filler crap that takes up a majority of the book, making Half-Blood Prince more entertaining. The ending, especially compared to the riveting climaxes of PoA and GoF, feels almost quaint, a complaint I have for OotP as well. However, I am looking forward to both parts of Deathly Hallows. The way Yates describes each part (the first one will have an almost "road movie" quality, very gritty, very verite; the second one will be more operatic and elegiac) excites me and I'm interested to see how both play out.
I love the films and the books. I can understand the viewpoint of people who are disappointed that the films aren't word-by-word transcriptions of the books, but the fact is we've gotten spoiled over the last decade with all the movies that have actually been fairly faithful adaptations of books like Potter and Lord of the Rings. 20-30 years ago we'd be lucky if a few lines of dialogue survived (just ask James Bond fans).
Taken on their own, I think the films have a great atmosphere, bear multiple viewings, and are fun. Half-Blood Prince falters only in that it offers no jumping on point for viewers. But frankly at this stage no one should watch HBP who hasn't seen the earlier movies anyway. I expect Deathly Hallows I and especially II to be completely impenetrable to anyone not familiar with the books and earlier films, and that's as it should be, frankly.
I also love the fact that except for a couple of minor characters and the one glaring exception of the actor playing Dumbledore, that they managed to keep the core cast intact. As such the films are probably going to be unique in the history of filmmaking for being a complete adaptation of a multiple book series (as opposed to trilogy) with almost a completely intact original cast. Twilight can't boast that because they already recast a major character, too - and in that case it wasn't even a situation where the actor had suddenly died, as what happened with Richard Harris.
We also get the unique opportunity (in film) to watch the core actors mature as their characters mature.
Also unique in all of this is that the original author has been involved in approving most aspects of the film (certainly story aspects, anyway). Peter Jackson didn't have JRR Tolkien on hand. Eon Productions had Ian Fleming available to consult on the first 2 Bonds, and then he died and the films began moving away from the books.
Each film has its strengths and weaknesses. Some have worked better than others. But I take a big picture viewpoint and I think the film series has been fantastic.
Interesting to read the comments that "not a lot happens" in Order of the Phoenix. Interestingly the same can be said of the novel. I re-read it recently and Rowling could have cut 200 pages from it easy; so in some respects the film reflects the spirit of the original book!
Alex
Taken on their own, I think the films have a great atmosphere, bear multiple viewings, and are fun. Half-Blood Prince falters only in that it offers no jumping on point for viewers. But frankly at this stage no one should watch HBP who hasn't seen the earlier movies anyway. I expect Deathly Hallows I and especially II to be completely impenetrable to anyone not familiar with the books and earlier films, and that's as it should be, frankly.
I also love the fact that except for a couple of minor characters and the one glaring exception of the actor playing Dumbledore, that they managed to keep the core cast intact. As such the films are probably going to be unique in the history of filmmaking for being a complete adaptation of a multiple book series (as opposed to trilogy) with almost a completely intact original cast. Twilight can't boast that because they already recast a major character, too - and in that case it wasn't even a situation where the actor had suddenly died, as what happened with Richard Harris.
We also get the unique opportunity (in film) to watch the core actors mature as their characters mature.
Also unique in all of this is that the original author has been involved in approving most aspects of the film (certainly story aspects, anyway). Peter Jackson didn't have JRR Tolkien on hand. Eon Productions had Ian Fleming available to consult on the first 2 Bonds, and then he died and the films began moving away from the books.
Each film has its strengths and weaknesses. Some have worked better than others. But I take a big picture viewpoint and I think the film series has been fantastic.
Interesting to read the comments that "not a lot happens" in Order of the Phoenix. Interestingly the same can be said of the novel. I re-read it recently and Rowling could have cut 200 pages from it easy; so in some respects the film reflects the spirit of the original book!
Alex
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
The further along they went, the further they got from the books and the more they cut out. As a result, the quality of the latter films frankly sucked. (The last one I saw was OoTP, and I have no desire to see any future ones.) I thought the first two brilliantly captured the "magic" of the Potterverse, something the latter films pretty much failed to do.
Of course, there's no good way to make a good film out of books 6 and 7 anyways, since both also sucked.
Of course, there's no good way to make a good film out of books 6 and 7 anyways, since both also sucked.
That's a lot of suckage.
Yeah, moving away from the black-and-white, patronizing, immature point of view of the first books (and movies) to the world of adults with moral dilemmas, falling and rising over personal faults and actually taking responsibilities for their own actions is such a terrible conclusion for the saga. 
I do enjoy the films, but, overall, think they are vastly inferior to the novels. My biggest complaint is how they seem to miss the extra "something."
I'd probably consider myself a card-carrying member of the "The book is always better than the movie." crowed. And in most cases, that's probably true.
I think the way to do is either a uber 100% adaptation like the Tolkien stuff, but even there you run into problems like length. Or the better option, like Bond, where you just snip out a few plot points and characters and then re-write the story completely.
The ones I have a problem are those, like Potter, where it's somewhere in between. The keep the plot as written and even save some dialogue, but then start cutting out scenes and characters to make it fit into 120 minutes. The problem with this is much of the stuff that gets left out is what gives the novel its oomph--the "heart" or "soul" as it were.
I think Goblet was the worst offender of this. So much was left out that, content wise, it was essentially the blurb on the back of the book.
On the other hand, OoTP seemed to have left too much in. In an interesting bit of irony, a lot of stuff that was on screen was taken from those 200 pages Rowling should've left in the wastebasket. It is my favorite of the novels and, while I agree a lot could have been cut out (200 hundred pages is probably more than needed), there are some excellent character scenes in there that, while that might not add much to the plot, really help set the thematic tone for the final two chapters.
Another complaint I have is how so many of the characters become wall ornaments. I get the whole time/space limitations with the film, but so many of them are important to both Harry's character and the themes of the stories.
Take Neville, for instance. He is the outlet for the main theme of the whole lot. His story tracks, builds, and pushes it forward through the course of each subsequent book until the culmination with his slaying of Nagini. But since he's limited in the films, once this scene is shown, much if its impact and importance will be muffled.
A less significant issue is how I've noticed that, in several places, the movies take large leaps forward in plot often switching to other locations with little or no explanation or exposition. It almost seems like they meant for you to have read the book first.
I'd probably consider myself a card-carrying member of the "The book is always better than the movie." crowed. And in most cases, that's probably true.
I think the way to do is either a uber 100% adaptation like the Tolkien stuff, but even there you run into problems like length. Or the better option, like Bond, where you just snip out a few plot points and characters and then re-write the story completely.
The ones I have a problem are those, like Potter, where it's somewhere in between. The keep the plot as written and even save some dialogue, but then start cutting out scenes and characters to make it fit into 120 minutes. The problem with this is much of the stuff that gets left out is what gives the novel its oomph--the "heart" or "soul" as it were.
I think Goblet was the worst offender of this. So much was left out that, content wise, it was essentially the blurb on the back of the book.
On the other hand, OoTP seemed to have left too much in. In an interesting bit of irony, a lot of stuff that was on screen was taken from those 200 pages Rowling should've left in the wastebasket. It is my favorite of the novels and, while I agree a lot could have been cut out (200 hundred pages is probably more than needed), there are some excellent character scenes in there that, while that might not add much to the plot, really help set the thematic tone for the final two chapters.
Another complaint I have is how so many of the characters become wall ornaments. I get the whole time/space limitations with the film, but so many of them are important to both Harry's character and the themes of the stories.
Take Neville, for instance. He is the outlet for the main theme of the whole lot. His story tracks, builds, and pushes it forward through the course of each subsequent book until the culmination with his slaying of Nagini. But since he's limited in the films, once this scene is shown, much if its impact and importance will be muffled.
A less significant issue is how I've noticed that, in several places, the movies take large leaps forward in plot often switching to other locations with little or no explanation or exposition. It almost seems like they meant for you to have read the book first.
I like the movies a lot. I'd like to give the novels another try someday, but there was something in Rowling's style that I found difficult to read after a certain point. I made it about 1/3 through the first book.
The Columbus films are static and the acting across the board is stiff and uninteresting. They are rote translations of the details of the books yet manage to suck all of the charm out of the stories (well, at least the first one - CoS is a fairly lackluster book).
Cuaron, alone among all the directors, manages to actually add to the substance of the HP universe with a slightly creepy visual style, off-the-wall humor that, while it doesn't match the humor of the books exactly at least communicates the substance of Rowling's wacky universe, and he pulls an actual theme to the fore thruogh the plot, characters and visuals - something even Rowling herself never managed to do with Harry Potter. By far the most interesting of the movies.
Newell did the best he could translating a big book into a short movie. He got all the essentials in and had some fun with it - probably the most solid of the later adaptations in terms of reflecting the book on screen.
Yates I just can't figure out. I found OotP to be an interminable, annoying book - but the film is snappy and exciting. In general the acting drawn from Radcliffe (who I find consistently stiff and generic) was better than average, and, while it was trite, he manages something of a theme, which is the warmth and loyalty of the three friends.
Then comes HBP which almost put me to sleep. Not only did it not tell the story which needed to be told in favor of rather endless teen romance angst, but it completely undercut what is pretty universally acknowledged as the most powerful dramatic sequence in the entire series - the death of Dumbledore. So somehow this director took one of the worst books and produced one of the best movies, then took one of the best books and produced one of the worst movies.
Cuaron, alone among all the directors, manages to actually add to the substance of the HP universe with a slightly creepy visual style, off-the-wall humor that, while it doesn't match the humor of the books exactly at least communicates the substance of Rowling's wacky universe, and he pulls an actual theme to the fore thruogh the plot, characters and visuals - something even Rowling herself never managed to do with Harry Potter. By far the most interesting of the movies.
Newell did the best he could translating a big book into a short movie. He got all the essentials in and had some fun with it - probably the most solid of the later adaptations in terms of reflecting the book on screen.
Yates I just can't figure out. I found OotP to be an interminable, annoying book - but the film is snappy and exciting. In general the acting drawn from Radcliffe (who I find consistently stiff and generic) was better than average, and, while it was trite, he manages something of a theme, which is the warmth and loyalty of the three friends.
Then comes HBP which almost put me to sleep. Not only did it not tell the story which needed to be told in favor of rather endless teen romance angst, but it completely undercut what is pretty universally acknowledged as the most powerful dramatic sequence in the entire series - the death of Dumbledore. So somehow this director took one of the worst books and produced one of the best movies, then took one of the best books and produced one of the worst movies.
Have you read Lord of the Rings? Peter Jackson's movies cut not only scenes and characters, but whole chapters and subplots, while introducing subplots that weren't in Tolkien's books, and bringing scenes to the forefront that were only "offscreen" in the books. In general, they were much looser adaptations than the Harry Potter films have been, and they were better as a result.
I enjoy all of the Harry Potter films and I look forward to seeing Deathly Hallows 1 & 2, but they have generally felt too much like plot-point checklists. That is more true of the earlier films than the more recent ones, at least.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Indeed it is. I blame Rowling for allowing the filmmakers on 3-5 to get so far away from the books. I blame Rowling for EVERYTHING having to do with Books 6 and 7.
Yeah, moving away from the black-and-white, patronizing, immature point of view of the first books (and movies) to the world of adults with moral dilemmas, falling and rising over personal faults and actually taking responsibilities for their own actions is such a terrible conclusion for the saga.
Oh give me a frakking break. Books 6 and 7 are a nightmare mish-mash of contrivances and desperate attempts to justify Rowling's plot holes and poor story choices. There's no possible way to make a good film out of those disasters.
The Columbus films are rich and warm and FEEL "magical", unlike the cold, washed-out and frankly creepy feel of the latter films. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the cinematography, where the combination of lighting and filter suck all the warmth and life out of the filmed images.
Yes, by cutting vast amounts of character development, Cuaron made us understand Harry and Co BETTER...
Horsecrap. I saw the film before reading the book (I came into HP "in the middle" as it were), and almost swore of the franchise entirely because of it. GoF is a nasty, harsh film that frankly portrays many of the "adult" characters in a very frightening and unlikeable way.
Half of the point of OoTP is to set up Rowling's attempt at "redeming" Snape, yet most of that is entirely ABSENT from the film.
I found the book atrocious and have no interest in seeing the movie because of it.
HBP is the essence of everything WRONG about Rowling's story construction. Voldemort is back and on the move. People are dying. ONLY Harry can stop it.
What does DD do?
Spend an entire frakking year playing "This is your life: Tom Riddle".
No combat training for Harry. No extra tutition in Transfiguration, Charms, or any USEFUL skill to help him face his "destiny". Just trolling through memories of Tom's life that are supposed to make us feel sorry for him somehow when it's evident that Tom was a "bad seed" from the get go.
Who gives a frak? Voldemort is evil. Now get on with helping Harry beat the snot out of the b*stard! Don't keep your "Savior" weak, ignorant and helpless...
Neither was I until, at the age of 38, I picked one up and discovered that these are mature, intricate, adult-oriented storylines. Just as Doctor Who is not a children's TV show, so too Potter books are not children's books - they are books suitable for everyone in the family to read. And there is a difference.
There seems to be a lack of understanding about youth fiction in people who automatically turn their noses up at it (not an accusation against the above poster, just a general statement). For example, folks who think the Gossip Girl books are just for kids till they open one up to a sex scene. Or Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy which many - and I'm one of them - feel should not have ever been published as children's literature. (They're excellent books, but far too mature to be truly considered kids lit, especially in its treatment of religion).
Speaking as someone who felt the same as Deckerd, I can only say try one. Don't start with the 900-page Order of the Phoenix (name me another "children's book" with that many pages, btw) but start with the first. I think you'll be surprised. Forget the movies.
Alex
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
do you think the Harry Potter films remain true to what the books or is there changes?
Similar threads
