Harry Potter films

[Lapis Exilis]

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.

Columbus apparently has no idea how to film any scene except in a mid-shot with two principles facing each other, which is about the most boring thing you can do visually. This repetitive shot construction led to the films being static. The only way they feel "magical" is by having multiple shots of Daniel Radcliffe opening his mouth and his eyes real wide and gasping - which doesn't exactly make the audience feel wonder. They lack every bit of the gently rollicking humor of Rowling's universe - and I'd like to shoot the guy for translating the "changing passages and staircases of Hogwarts" into literally swinging staircases. The whole point of having changing passages and staircases was to indicate that Hogwarts castle was magically "alive", not outfitted with mechanical stairways. He was far too literal-minded for a movie about magic.

Yes, by cutting vast amounts of character development, Cuaron made us understand Harry and Co BETTER...

I'm sorry, but HP has little to no character development. The kids grow older, Ron gets a little braver and a little more comfortable in his own skin, Hermione gets a little looser - and that's about it. The only character who actually develops is Neville, and most of that is on the sidelines. Cuaron's film has style and thematic strength, and he got by far the most relaxed and naturalistic performances from the three principles.

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.

A lot of adult characters in HP are very frightening and unlikeable.

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 honestly don't remember the point of OotP the book as it seemed to me to 900 pages of ridiculous angsty whining and stupidity on Harry's part.

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...

You are asking HP to be something it is not and never was intended to be. The books followed an exact formula (even to the end which required bringing DD back from the dead so that he could have his obligatory explanatory "love is the moral of all this" scene - and begging the question of why all the students didn't just clear out every year in April, since obviously Voldemort was going to show and do something nasty) and there was never any way she was going to deviate from that. Don't get me wrong - there's plenty wrong with HP, including its formulaic nature, not to mention the various threads she seemed to set up that went nowhere. But getting pissed because she didn't turn Harry into a magic-wielding warrior is kind of ridiculous. That was never the story being told. The one semi-theme she had was about love being more powerful than violence, so to expect Harry to prevail via BadAssery is just silly.

Besides - is that honestly the only kind of hero anyone can dream up any more? Yet another generic, fisticuffs action hero? Do all stories have to be versions of superhero comics these days? I for one am way over it - and the fact that Harry is such a popular hero who does not simply rely on Might Makes Right indicates that there is plenty of other ways to tell a story about defeating evil

 

[iguana_tonante]

The Columbus films are rich and warm and FEEL "magical", unlike the cold, washed-out and frankly creepy feel of the latter films.

The only way they feel "magical" is by having multiple shots of Daniel Radcliffe opening his mouth and his eyes real wide and gasping - which doesn't exactly make the audience feel wonder.

Like the first two books, the Columbus movies do look magical... to prepubescent kids. And darkwing. Make of that what you will.

A lot of adult characters in HP are very frightening and unlikeable.

Which is exactly the point, since every HP book is told from the PoV of Harry and fully taking into account his age. To a kid, most adults are confusing, incomprehensible, unlikable and often frightening.

I honestly don't remember the point of OotP the book as it seemed to me to 900 pages of ridiculous angsty whining and stupidity on Harry's part.

I completely agree. On the other hand, it also matches the personality of every 15 year old I've ever known (included myself), so I will blindly lend some credibility to Rowling and think that was the intended result.

HBP is the essence of everything WRONG about Rowling's story construction.

I consider HBP outstanding and the best book of the saga. Go figure.

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.

Knowing Tom was the training. I guess the part about know thy enemy escaped you.

 

[CorporalClegg]

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.

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.

Actually, I've read the novels plenty of times. It's the films I haven't seen. I turned Fellowship off about an hour in and never bothered to go back.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

You mean you were talking about something as fact despite hardly knowing anything about it at all? On these internets?

I am, frankly, shocked and appalled.

I agree with the general consensus (ie. opposite of darkwing's) that the first two films almost completely sucked the magic out of the story (see the staircases) while the following movies, though still flawed to varying degrees, managed to recapture it somewhat.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Columbus apparently has no idea how to film any scene except in a mid-shot with two principles facing each other, which is about the most boring thing you can do visually. This repetitive shot construction led to the films being static. The only way they feel "magical" is by having multiple shots of Daniel Radcliffe opening his mouth and his eyes real wide and gasping - which doesn't exactly make the audience feel wonder.

Bull. Columbus uses "warm" colorations to convey a sense of depth and mystery in the cinematography. The visual pallate he chose is rich and draws in the eye rather than freezing it out with harsh, washed out tones.

They lack every bit of the gently rollicking humor of Rowling's universe

I didn't find it thus, and inclusion of a few more of the character bits could have shown us that quite easily if it were the case.

- and I'd like to shoot the guy for translating the "changing passages and staircases of Hogwarts" into literally swinging staircases. The whole point of having changing passages and staircases was to indicate that Hogwarts castle was magically "alive", not outfitted with mechanical stairways.

That's exactly the imagery used in the books.

I'm sorry, but HP has little to no character development. The kids grow older, Ron gets a little braver and a little more comfortable in his own skin, Hermione gets a little looser - and that's about it. The only character who actually develops is Neville, and most of that is on the sidelines.

By depriving us of the scenes that show who the characters ARE, Cuaron and the latter directors leave them as little more than cyphers or plot devices.

Cuaron's film has style and thematic strength, and he got by far the most relaxed and naturalistic performances from the three principles.

"Stylish" crap is still crap.

A lot of adult characters in HP are very frightening and unlikeable.

GoF however, depicts those characters who SHOULDN'T be seen as such as being so. Dumbledoor especially comes off as being almost violent towards Harry on several occasions. And furthermore, scenes that should have been emphasized, like DD's declaration of Harry's points in the 2nd task "for outstanding moral fibre" are played as throwaway bits, ruining their imact.

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 honestly don't remember the point of OotP the book as it seemed to me to 900 pages of ridiculous angsty whining and stupidity on Harry's part.

Agreed there is massive stupidity in OoTP, but it's Rowling's not Harry's. The Snape material is supposed to further his plot arc. The director cut virtually ALL of it, robbing the film of the one thing that could arguably be called a purpose.

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...

You are asking HP to be something it is not and never was intended to be.

You mean "good"?

Don't get me wrong - there's plenty wrong with HP, including its formulaic nature, not to mention the various threads she seemed to set up that went nowhere. But getting pissed because she didn't turn Harry into a magic-wielding warrior is kind of ridiculous. That was never the story being told. The one semi-theme she had was about love being more powerful than violence, so to expect Harry to prevail via BadAssery is just silly.

What's silly is to write us a story about a passive victim protagonist who only wins because of a series of deus ex machina on the part of the author.

No where is this more apparent than book 7, where Harry spends entire chapters wandering around aimlessly until the author decides to have "the god" descend and advance the plot.

Never, not ONCE (in the entire series) is Harry allowed to act proactively to better his circumstance, let alone his ability to carry out the task he is "fated" to accomplish.

For example, Harry HAS all the tools needed to sneak into Hogwarts and steal the sword of Griffyndor. But does he? Nooooo, that would be LOGICAL. Instead he has to wait until Snape drops the thing off in a pond in the middle of winter and almost DROWN trying to get it.

Yeah, that's REAL good story construction...the protagonist sits on his ass and waits for the author to move him forward...

Besides - is that honestly the only kind of hero anyone can dream up any more? Yet another generic, fisticuffs action hero? Do all stories have to be versions of superhero comics these days?

If anyone does that, it's Rowling, then never pays it off, which is what's so frustrating.

I for one am way over it - and the fact that Harry is such a popular hero who does not simply rely on Might Makes Right indicates that there is plenty of other ways to tell a story about defeating evil

Yeah, sit on your ass and wait for "fate" to take care of it...

Knowing Tom was the training. I guess the part about know thy enemy escaped you.

How did any ofthat knowledge equip Harry to actually FIGHT Tom?

Oh, that's right, it DIDN'T...it just took up space and wasted time...

 

[Sephiroth]

J.K. Rowling created a very intricate and interesting world, I enjoy reading about it, sure, her charaters are flawed, but isn't EVERYONE flawed? they are good stories, just enjoy them for what they are

 

[darkwing_duck1]

J.K. Rowling created a very intricate and interesting world, I enjoy reading about it, sure, her charaters are flawed, but isn't EVERYONE flawed? they are good stories, just enjoy them for what they are

She created an interesting concept, yes. Her execution leaves a lot to be desired though.

 

[Deckerd]

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.

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.

The LoTR films were based on the books. It says so in the credits. There's a lot of difference between a dedicated copy of the book, like for instance many Dracula films, an interpretation of a book, like One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, and a film that's based on a book, like LoTR. When you say 'better as a result' you mean they are better films for only being based on the books, not that the films are better than the books, since IMO they can't be compared.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

When you say 'better as a result' you mean they are better films for only being based on the books, not that the films are better than the books...

True! I worded that carelessly and did not mean to imply that the films are better than the books.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Bull. Columbus uses "warm" colorations to convey a sense of depth and mystery in the cinematography. The visual pallate he chose is rich and draws in the eye rather than freezing it out with harsh, washed out tones.

I find your argument that the Columbus films were "magical" solely because they used a warm color palatte to be... lacking.

That's exactly the imagery used in the books.

Uh... not.

From the Harry Potter Lexicon:

"the various rooms and spaces in the castle tend to move around, according to Rowling [4]. The Famous Wizrd Cards attribute this magical, rearranging floorplan to Rowena Ravenclaw. This can't be happening all the time, surely, or no one would be able to get anywhere, but it does happen enough to keep people on their toes. There is no example of actual moving staircases in the castle (that's a movie invention, although there is mention in OP of a "swiveling staircase" which could be similar to what we see in the first film) but it is clear that things do change. The Hospital Wing is a good example; it moved from the first floor in 1992 to the third floor in 1996.

Emphasis mine.

By depriving us of the scenes that show who the characters ARE, Cuaron and the latter directors leave them as little more than cyphers or plot devices.

Which scenes would these be?

GoF however, depicts those characters who SHOULDN'T be seen as such as being so. Dumbledoor especially comes off as being almost violent towards Harry on several occasions.

I remember this argument when the movie came out. I won't deny that Gambon's choices for playing those scenes were unusual, but I think they were done to add dynamism to the scenes - which were in substance a bunch of people standing around yakking. I certainly never interpreted tham as "almost violent". Gambon's DD was rather excitable at times. One reason I found his protrayal infinitely superior to Harris's.

What's silly is to write us a story about a passive victim protagonist who only wins because of a series of deus ex machina on the part of the author.

I think this is a fair criticism of the entire series.

 

[Count Zero]

I watched the first four movies last weekend. (Only because David Tennant is in the fourth one. )
Well, I'm not terribly impressed. The first two movies were pretty boring. The third one had an impressive visual style. I liked how the motifs (like the giant clock) matched the theme of the film.
The fourth one was again a bit lacklustre, but entertaining enough. I don't think I'd watch any of the movies again.

 

[zakkrusz]

The films are okay. Entertaining to watch once, though none of them are really that outstanding and I don't feel the need to watch them more than once or own them.

 

[suarezguy]

Azkaban was the only really good one. Despite good casting, the Columbus films feel pretty dry and for-kids (books work better because even as you know the characters are young, you can still put yourself in their places). GoF, though it did the Harry/Ron conflict pretty well, went way over-the-top with the humor especially coming after PoA.
The Yates films really miss the points-OotP minimized Umbridge's detentions (one scene) and Snape's teaching (two?) and the corresponding disillusionment with James (which the screenwriter said would be a major point) while in HBP Harry/Ginny comes out of nowhere, Riddle has little screentime and explanation of motivation, Dumbledore has no sense of urgency and somehow Snape is terrible as a villain.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Snape is terrible as a villain.

Which is really amazing when you consider who's playing him.

 

[LitmusDragon]

As an adult, I was never interested in reading these children's books.

I'm sorry but I can't resist pointing out the irony in this statement being that you have an Incredibles avatar.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

and the corresponding disillusionment with James (which the screenwriter said would be a major point)

I don't think losing this from the film mattered at all. It was one of the many things Rowling threw in that went nowhere. Harry has a momentary realization that his dad was a tool in high school - and then never particularly thinks of it again. The main function of the reveal about James being a bully is in Snape's story and the movie got that across just fine.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Bull. Columbus uses "warm" colorations to convey a sense of depth and mystery in the cinematography. The visual pallate he chose is rich and draws in the eye rather than freezing it out with harsh, washed out tones.

I find your argument that the Columbus films were "magical" solely because they used a warm color palatte to be... lacking.

Not my sole arguement, but certainly a big one. The difference in impression left by the different color pallates in the first two and later films is highly noticable and jarring. It leaves a lasting impression on the viewer that is almost impossible to shake off.

That's exactly the imagery used in the books.

Uh... not.

From the Harry Potter Lexicon:

"the various rooms and spaces in the castle tend to move around, according to Rowling [4]. The Famous Wizrd Cards attribute this magical, rearranging floorplan to Rowena Ravenclaw. This can't be happening all the time, surely, or no one would be able to get anywhere, but it does happen enough to keep people on their toes. There is no example of actual moving staircases in the castle (that's a movie invention, although there is mention in OP of a "swiveling staircase" which could be similar to what we see in the first film) but it is clear that things do change. The Hospital Wing is a good example; it moved from the first floor in 1992 to the third floor in 1996.

Emphasis mine.

I never claimed that there were no changes. I simply rebutted your claim that the moving stairs were not in the books.

I remember this argument when the movie came out. I won't deny that Gambon's choices for playing those scenes were unusual, but I think they were done to add dynamism to the scenes - which were in substance a bunch of people standing around yakking. I certainly never interpreted tham as "almost violent". Gambon's DD was rather excitable at times. One reason I found his protrayal infinitely superior to Harris's.

Gambon completely lacks the warmth and empathy that Harris so easily projected. His (Harris') death was a real loss to the films.

Ian MacKellan would have been a good replacement for Harris.

What's silly is to write us a story about a passive victim protagonist who only wins because of a series of deus ex machina on the part of the author.

I think this is a fair criticism of the entire series.

Well, we agree on something at least...

 

[CaptainCanada]

Harris had no energy in the part (given his health at the time, perhaps not entirely surprising), which would've been a real problem as the series went on.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Harris had no energy in the part (given his health at the time, perhaps not entirely surprising), which would've been a real problem as the series went on.

He had plenty of energy in the first one. In #2 it was obvious his health was failing, but had that not happened he would have continued just fine. DD only has a couple of scenes that would have required much in the way of physicality (the duel in OoTP primarily) and that could have been done with a stunt double and face replacement.

 

[Agenda]

Harris was kind of old for the part, but he had a presence about him that Gambon lacks. Dumbledore is supposed to be a secret badass. I can't see the new guy as that.