Best HP Director

[jan74]

Noldus wrote: "That's probably why he was chosen for OotP, though he was not their first choice. Jean-Pierre Jeunet was offered the job before Yates, but declined because "almost everything was done, from the actors to the script. The only thing I would have had to do was to sit on the chair and say 'action'....My life is too short to make those kinds of movies."

I´ve also understood that Jeunet was offered the job of one of the later HP movies. I´ve also heard that Guillermo Del Toro was offered to do nr. 6, but I´m not 100 % sure.

Anyway I think there´s an important lesson to learn from the Jeunet´s reason for turning the offer down. It´s easy to assume that the best choice of director for HP would be someone known for having his/her own distinct cinematic voice and universe as well as having a flair for the fantastical. But most of these directors prefer to have a much stronger control over the entire creative process right from the start. In addition they want to work with their own material and choose their own favoured actors.
I´ve seen and enjoyed several of Jeunet´s films and I strongly doubt that he would be able to adapt his cinematic vision to the Harry Potter universe.

[thePuff003]

Originally Posted by Noldus

Not necessarily. I think it was because the studio saw fit to find stability in Yates, who seems like a diplomatic and collaborative guy. As jan74 pointed out, bringing in a new director might have been too risky since the core audience already is established and doesn't need any drastic changes to be "sold". This is a series after all. The producers probably assumed that the worst they could get from a competent director as Yates was mediocrity.

Ok, here's another quote from Yates:

"I was still working on Order of the Phoenix when they asked me to do Half-Blood Prince. The film hadn't even come out. So, they were really delighted with the material that they were seeing while we were in post-production, and the conversations happened before the movie was released, because I had to start pre-production on it while Order of the Phoenix was being promoted. So, it was just something they see in the work that they really liked, and responded to. And then, of course, Order of the Phoenix did really well, and we started to have lots of fun with Half-Blood Prince. And then they said, "Look. Would you like to finish it?" And I said, "Well, of course I would. Who wouldn't? It would be a great opportunity."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/intervie...-blood-prince-

[tru0001]

I loved Columbus since the first two movies had that "glow" that the other had. The glow is mentioned in the Behind the Scenes interview on the DVDs released in 2002. Other than that Yates was fabulous! I didn't like Alfonso that much since his direction looked so different compared to Columbus which which was something I had to get used too when I was watching the film. Especially when the students weren't wearing their uniforms most of the time.

[lil_snuffles]

I am definitely a big fan of David Yates directing. Deathly Hallows Part 1 just looked amazing! His directing was spot on and I enjoyed every second of that movie. I am definitely looking forward to seeing Part 2 and how its going to look.

[kmhm]

It's between Chris Columbus and David Yates, honestly.

Chris Columbus stayed true to the books. While David Yates, stayed true to the emotions that the characters would've felt, if that makes sense.

[mollypotter]

Columbus. He had the hardest job of actually creating the magical world in the first place. His are my favorites because of how great the books were adapted over, IMO.
Though the actors being so adorable probably affluenced my opinions

[Montse]

I dunno , hard to say really. I think each film presented different challenges. Some did better in some areas, so its like really hard to pick.

I cant tell but I can say what I liked from each.

Columbus: the cast he chose. Yes, unlike many I am pleased with the cast. Not perfect in some ways, but they grew on me , so yeah. The cast selection. The creation of the environment and the respect he showed to the story.

Cuaron: his unique touch, his twist, from kiddie to not so young touch. His wickedness. Love it.

Mike Newell: Goblet is my least favorite, but if there is somthing i like better from this film is the romantic touch. I wish Yates had managed to make Harry show his feelings for Ginny as Newell made Dan show Harry´s feelings for Cho.

Yates: The action he accomplished, the story he managed to tell. I think he did a good job taking into consideration those books were the longest and darker.

[WildFloo162]

uuuggggghhh. I'm sad because people are picking Columbus. Holy cannoli I think he sucks so hard. lol. The first two flicks are easily the worst (obviously this is all my opinion, and not meant to offend. Opinions make the world go round, I guess.). The first two movies have lack a certain magic that three has in abundance, and that for the most pat the following directors manage to keep. The first two are such slaves to the material that Columbus had no time or energy to make anything look nice or interesting. It looks like a normal boarding school for Petes sake. It's just so... BORING.

That said, going just by talent, Cuaron is the best director. Three is not my favorite film, but it is the best film. If that makes sense. Yates rocks too, and Newell is mediocre.

In all fairness to Columbus, he had to deal with very green and young cast as well. So it was undoubtedly stressful.

[ILikeCho]

Alfonso Cuaron to me, really got down the Wizarding World without getting too 'ohh, lookie-lookie-lookie!' The Hogwarts in PoA is probably the most magical its been: we get the talking paintings, the ghosts running/floating through the halls. Cuaron is often about background-action in alot of his films. Just watch 'Children of Men' several times, and you can see all sorts of little actions and works that sell that film.

Runner-up would be Mike Newell: As someone above said, the emotional touch he put into GoF really made that film for me. He pretty much helped to get down the rollercoaster of emotions regarding teenage boy/girl interaction. I love films when they can make me feel like I can relate to a character, and that shot of Harry lying on the couch after being told 'I'm sorry' by Cho...I could relate to that look and feeling.

As well, GoF was probably the first of the Potter films that made me shed tears. Notably when Harry's parents appear and speak to him, as well as Harry's reactions upon returning from the graveyard. I often considered GoF to be the 'Empire Strikes Back' of the series: it's the turning point for this world, and the open-ending was an interesting touch.

[missjanepotter]

1)Alfonso Cuaron to me PoA is by far the best film
2)David Yates I really really love DH part 1 and 2
3)Mike Newell I love the romance and Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort
4)Chris Columbus I put him last simply because I can almost see SS and CoS as part 1 and 2 , I can´t see the difference , unlike David Yates who got to make 4 different films with a different tone and they are all wonderful

[Tonks_Animagus]

1) PoA Alfonso Cuaron for sure! I really liked the whole atmosphere, it was like you were in the movie
2) Also Chris Columbus made 1 and 2 spectacular movies! Great portrayal of the books
3) David Yates did a great job with DH!
4) Mike Newell wasn't something special... I didn't really like the tone and general climate of the movies. Lots of funny lines though

[Coldwindblows]

1. David Yates. I preferred PoA, but in hindsight, Yates took the last four movies and really made them something special. He proved that he could handle the last movies, the darker movies. He proved that he is a very able director who can deal with kids and adults, isn't afraid to add some humour to his direction, and who can make a very, very decent adaptation of a well-loved book. And he didn't just prove that once, he proved it four times.
Another big prop I give to him is for turning DH into two movies. Another director mightn't have done that. He appreciates where the fans are coming from, and to turn the last book into two films simply just to cover more ground is not just a very good decision, it proves that he has the fans in mind.

2. Alfonso Cuaron really captured the essence of the HP series in his only directing endeavour. Harry's hair looked the way it should have, Harry behaved the wya he should have, he was no longer innocent ("HE WAS THEIR FRIEND!!!") and really did a good job in laying down the concept of Dementors, making them as scary as JK intended them to be, and not making their characters lighter, as Columbus might have done. He introduced us to the Marauder's Map very well, and to Hogsmeade, and directed my favourite ever HP scene, the confrontation in the Shrieking Shack.
He introduced us to Trelawney, Lupin, Sirius and Wormtail brilliantly, and overall, did a fantastic job. He's only second on here because he only directed one movie. It might have been a fluke, but to be honest, I doubt it.

3. Christopher Columbus did a lovely job on the first two movies. I think it was the right choice to have him direct the first two... he made the movies very... well, magical. We'd never seen anything like it before. I was only 6 when I saw PS/SS, and honestly, I'd never seen anything more exciting in my life. He did great work with Dan, Rupert and Emma, and had the hardest job of all with them, considering they were only small.
He did a great job in introducing us to the magic.

4. I do not hate Mike Newell. He's only last because the other three were better. I think he had the hardest movie, though. It might not have been his fault. He had the transition from happy, innocent kids' book, to darker, more serious novels, with death and the return of Lord Voldemort.
He dealt very well with the Tournament, although at times, it could have been a little less cheesy. I'd have liked to have seen a version that was a little truer to the novel, tasks and Quidditch World Cup-wise.
The best scene in the movie, only because of how true it is to the novel, is the return of Voldemort. That was done, fair play to Mike, exactly as I imagined it would be. So I don't hate him, I just... am a little annoyed by all the things he didn't touch on (Ludo Bagman, SPEW, Dobby helping Harry and not Neville.... these things.)

[Martificiam]

I'm a huge admirer of Cuaron's style and I'd say his adaptation could stand alone as a separate movie. His cinematography is brilliant, as is the atmosphere which was somewhat of a scary/funny/dark mix. PoA surely dragged the HP movies from that overly childish Columbus's state. Alfonso gave some depth to the films.

David Yates also did a great job. Loved it.

My least favorite are the others.

[ArryGrotter]

Definitely David Yates. He took the world and made it feel realistic. He really is the actor's director, as we feel more attached to the characters rather than the spectacle, although Yates is really good at spectacle. My favourite scenes/shots of the series are all Yates' memory montages (any montage really), that shot in the Department of Mysteries that pans over the scene, that shot in HBP after Hermione sets the birds on Ron, and the whole "Courtyard Apocalypse" scene in DH2

[Hermione379]

I agree on Yates.

[HP4567fan]

I think That Mike Newell and David Yates are great though i kinda prefer Mike Newell over Yates.

[J17]

1. Cuaron - POA isn't my favorite film simply because the ending bores me on repeat viewings which is also a problem I have with the book so it isn't Cuaron's fault. He had the look, style, whimsy, flare, humor, and mood perfect. I would have liked to have seen his take on the later films.

2. Yates - What can I say here? I mean his work speaks for itself. He was a trooper, and made 4 great films all of which I love. OOTP certainly needs that 45 minutes Yate's cut out put back in, but as it stands it works.

3. Columbus - He set up the foundation, and while his films are more child oriented they did justice to the source material slavishly so at times. The series seems like such a sure idea now cause its over, but back then there was no telling if it would succeed. If Columbus or any director had tripped up on the first the series may have ended there or not gotten the support it did. My hats off to the man, crew, and cast for all their hard work on those first two.

4. Newell - I guess I should start with what I like since that is a much smaller list. The adaption was good for the most part, and Harry fawning over Cho was great. That is the best relationships were represented in the films. See told you it was a small list. Following Cuaron he had a lot to live up to, and in most areas he was sub-par. The cinematography was bland. The pace was all over the place. Characterization was a mess, and in some places down right wrong hmm hmm Dumbledore I'm looking at you. Camera work was standard fare for the most part. Humor was cheesy. Heck, the majority of the movie was cheesy. Barty Crouch Sr.'s casting speaks for itself. The last scene of the movie was entirely misdirected with the emotions being polar opposite to what they should have been. I could go on and on, but I'll stop there.

Newell's problem started with his first ideas about the world. He told Heyman he wanted to make it like a Bollywood film, and there was the first red flag. Heyman himself was worried at hearing that, but Newell managed to convince him it would work. I don't think it did. He wanted to make the school a traditional boarding school, and envisioned Dumbledore similar to his boarding school headmaster. We all saw how that turned out. He came very close to doing away with Voldemort's snake like visage. He refused to let them remove Phienne's nose with prostetics cause it would mess up his acting. He even refused to try computer removal. Heyman and him went at it on multiple occassions. Heyman wasn't having it. He knew it was an important part of Voldemort's character and would have been a blatant deviation from the book. He also felt the fans would riot. Finally, after multiple arguments he got Newell to approve a test run with the CGI. Upon seeing the process he approved it. Had it not been for Heyman caring so much and standing up to him Newell would have ruined Voldemort. Thank god someone fought back. Newell, had more wrong ideas than right imo and most evidence proves that. Luckily what he got wrong Heyman and others corrected. The man was just wrong for the job for the most part.

All the films have flaws and little problems, but GOF's are more numerous and obvious than the other's. It is for that reason I tend to be more critical of it.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by J17

He wanted to make the school a traditional boarding school, and envisioned Dumbledore similar to his boarding school headmaster.

But Hogwarts is a traditional boarding school.

He came very close to doing away with Voldemort's snake like visage. He refused to let them remove Phienne's nose with prostetics cause it would mess up his acting. He even refused to try computer removal. Heyman and him went at it on multiple occassions. Heyman wasn't having it. He knew it was an important part of Voldemort's character and would have been a blatant deviation from the book. He also felt the fans would riot. Finally, after multiple arguments he got Newell to approve a test run with the CGI. Upon seeing the process he approved it. Had it not been for Heyman caring so much and standing up to him Newell would have ruined Voldemort. Thank god someone fought back. Newell, had more wrong ideas than right imo and most evidence proves that. Luckily what he got wrong Heyman and others corrected. The man was just wrong for the job for the most part.

I don't think it would have been possible to ruin Voldemort with that actor playing him, IMO. But I guess they had to have the snake-face.

Anyway, my vote goes to Cuarón.

With Yates second.

[J17]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

But Hogwarts is a traditional boarding school.



I don't think it would have been possible to ruin Voldemort with that actor playing him, IMO. But I guess they had to have the snake-face.

Anyway, my vote goes to Cuarón.

With Yates second.

Hogwarts is far from a traditional boarding school. It's structure is all it really has in common with a muggle boarding school. Its classes, nature, atmosphere, discipline, world is entirely un-muggle. The hogwarts in the books is not the Hogwarts he presented. He went for a very muggle style boarding school, and out of all the movies his Hogwarts as a location itself felt the least magical. The whole movie came across very unmagical. It all felt so very "muggle". Yeah, you've got the magical creatures, and the tournament, but its presentation was were it had no magical flare. It played more like a drama with a bit of fantasy thrown in rather than a fantasy with drama thrown in. He did it with Prince of Persia, too. Yeah, the magic was there, but it was presented in a very unmagical way.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by J17

Hogwarts is far from a traditional boarding school. It's structure is all it really has in common with a muggle boarding school. Its classes, nature, atmosphere, discipline, world is entirely un-muggle.

OK, but the British Boarding School is a very traditional trope and JKR uses it to the max. Hogwarts is very magical but also more old-fashioned than contemporary British schools.

The hogwarts in the books is not the Hogwarts he presented. He went for a very muggle style boarding school, and out of all the movies his Hogwarts as a location itself felt the least magical. The whole movie came across very unmagical. It all felt so very "muggle". Yeah, you've got the magical creatures, and the tournament, but its presentation was were it had no magical flare.

It seems that your perception of this film differs from mine. I found GoF to be a thoroughly entertaining, and very magical, fantasy film. That's what I paid to see, and what I got.

It played more like a drama with a bit of fantasy thrown in ...

Well, the HP books are fantasy dramas and the psychological drama is essential. The fantasy, if you like, is the framework. The magic is the 'science' of the Wizarding World, and obviously influences the plot, but the drama is crucial.