Are the movies getting better or worse?

[koston]

Originally Posted by Mistichic

Personally I really dislike HbP!
Its not at all loyal to the book and winds me up! Like the whole fire and they just kinda got rid of Harry and Ginny's relationship, how is he meant to remember sunny days in lonely parts of the castle grounds?! And how is their meant to be a wedding in a place that has been burned down (although I now think they might just skip that, because they missed the whole "Flem" thing out!)

I think OoTP was my favourite, because it has some of my favourite quotes in! It still kinda had the magical element in it! And because it kept to the storyline mostly!
x

i completely agree with this. it wasnt loyal to the book at all

[jan74]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

I agree with that, and I understand it, but at some point you need to realize that you have to include certain parts of information for the sake of the plot. That information needed to be in there. And I'm not talking multiple scenes, I'm talking about one 3 to 4 minute scene. Harry asks where DD thinks the other horocruxes are, and DD explains. Bang, that's it. It could take less then 5mins and you have the information you need in there.

I'm all for changing aspects of the books to make it work cinematically, and HBP was still my favorite movie, but still, they needed that quick bit of information for the sake of the overall plot of the main story.
.

4 minutes, that is a very long time for a scene which is just about talking and explaining, it would amount to almost one entire scene of the film if shown continuously. Also I would like to ask: why does the information need to be in the sixth film? Could not some of it be given in Deathly Hallows part one if they want to, either prior to the wedding or gradually throughout the story? And doesn't it all depend on how they handle the search for the horcruxes in the film and what aspects of it they decide to stress? In the book Deathly Hallows our heroes most of the time don't have a clue where the other horcruxes might be, the only one whose location they would be likely to know was Nagini.

I don't disagree that the surprise/shock effect in the film also could have been shown through Harry. I guess the advantage of using Dumbledore would be that he is a much more knowledgeable and experienced wizard - when he is shocked it has a greater effect.




I

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by jan74

4 minutes, that is a very long time for a scene which is just about talking and explaining, it would amount to almost one entire scene of the film if shown continuously. Also I would like to ask: why does the information need to be in the sixth film? Could not some of it be given in Deathly Hallows part one if they want to, either prior to the wedding or gradually throughout the story? And doesn't it all depend on how they handle the search for the horcruxes in the film and what aspects of it they decide to stress? In the book Deathly Hallows our heroes most of the time don't have a clue where the other horcruxes might be, the only one whose location they would be likely to know was Nagini.

I don't disagree that the surprise/shock effect in the film also could have been shown through Harry. I guess the advantage of using Dumbledore would be that he is a much more knowledgeable and experienced wizard - when he is shocked it has a greater effect.

I would have the information in there because in the book plot, the fact that DD gave harry an idea of what the horocruxes could be "the snake, the cup, the locket, something of gryffindors or ravenclaws" was literally all Harry had to go off of in DH. Now, Harry quite literally has nothing to go off of.

The thing that annoyed me more was that they had the line in there "it could quite possibly be anything" or something to that effect, when in the book, DD went out of his way to specifically point out that it could not just be an everyday item.

And yes, four minutes isn't a short scene, but really, it would have been quite easy.

Harry: So it could be anything sir?
DD: No, not quite. I tought Tom Riddle, and I know him, as well as anyone can. He wouldn't entrust something as important as his soul in an everyday object.

and then go on and have DD explain what he thinks the horocruxes could be.

Not too hard. It's going to be interesting to see how they figure out what the other horocruxes could be in the films. I read that it might be mostly through Harry's accidental "mind readings" of Voldy when he freaks out. And I suppose that could work, but still I would have rather they included a short scene of DD explaining it to Harry, because it would show us some of that exceptional planning power that DD has, yet something the films have decided to ignore.

Still, none of this keeps HBP from being my favorite film. I still enjoy it quite a bit. And what they do regarding DD in HBP is not even close to as bad what they do to his character in GOF.

[Quaff]

I really thought the sixth could have been the best if they had not put so much 'original' material in, the muggle cafe as a starting point seemed a waste of a scene which could have effectively been the film's goodbye to the Dursleys.

Also, at the end, when Harry hides and does not try to act even though he has the choice to, I felt that compromised his character completely. I don't feel Harry would have watched Dumbledore die without trying to help in some way if he had his wand and could move his body. In the book does he not struggle against the charm, forgetting Dumbledore's orders. Although I have seen the movie only once, a while ago, I remember Snape telling Harry to stay and him obeying, I didn't feel that was right either. Forgive me if my memory is leaky.

So, I felt that the first five movies held Harry's character better and I fear they peaked at 5, after a good first two, a poor third and a better forth one. The sixth captured the mood very well but became a little too focused on the romance at times.

[cathairetic]

I just finished watching HBP and I must say I prefer the book! I have said before that the writers leave out half the book and they certainly did this time. Honestly! I suppose if you haven't read the books it would be fine for you, but I cannot see how anyone would say that the films are better than the books. At least they will take two films to present DH on the silver screen. (But it will probably leave out a lot again.)

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

And yes, four minutes isn't a short scene, but really, it would have been quite easy.

To what end though? It would have been dead time.

Think of a film you saw once in a cinema two or three years ago. Would you remember a short conversation of the type you are recommending now? If such a scene had occurred in Bourne 2, what chance would there by of audiences remembering in it Bourne 3 (or any other example of a sequel/series).

Moreover, I think the book version adds confusion. Rowling has DD state that - leaving aside the diary horcrux - Voldemort would never trust any other horcrux to his followers. He would hide them himself, protected by spells, in places of personal significance to him.

Then we find that one is in Bellatrix's bank vault.....

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

To what end though? It would have been dead time.

Think of a film you saw once in a cinema two or three years ago. Would you remember a short conversation of the type you are recommending now? If such a scene had occurred in Bourne 2, what chance would there by of audiences remembering in it Bourne 3 (or any other example of a sequel/series).

Moreover, I think the book version adds confusion. Rowling has DD state that - leaving aside the diary horcrux - Voldemort would never trust any other horcrux to his followers. He would hide them himself, protected by spells, in places of personal significance to him.

Then we find that one is in Bellatrix's bank vault.....

You're not going to find this objective thinking here on a HP forum. We're all fans here so we're naturally not going to be observing and studying these movies objectively and treat them like they are just another movie series.

I've noticed you've been trying to get people on here to look at these movies as just regular movies but IMO, that's a losing battle. It's like walking into a hen coop and telling the chickens that their eggs are just another source of dairy and not all that special.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

I've noticed you've been trying to get people on here to look at these movies as just regular movies but IMO, that's a losing battle. It's like walking into a hen coop and telling the chickens that their eggs are just another source of dairy and not all that special.

Not exactly. I'm saying that the films have to work as films and assume that the audience members have not read the books. Most ticket buyers who will watch DH1 will not know that they were "supposed to" have been told All About The Horcruxes in HBP because .... that's the way it is in the books.

When the horcrux hunt kicks off they will have to be reminded what horcruxes are and why Harry is looking for them. Even if HBP had included a longwinded Explanation, they would still need to be brought up to speed in DH1 all over again.

Audiences should not be given information too early.

[lil_snuffles]

I believe they are getting better. Seeing the acting from Sorcerer's Stone up to Half Blood Prince, all of the actors have improved greatly. I think that because of the acting, I greatly enjoyed watching Half Blood Prince. It is my favorite movie by far and I know that Deathly Hallows will probably be the best.

[HarryXGinny4evr]

In my opinion, they are getting WAY better! The actors are much stronger and more in touch with their characters, and they're portraying them better than when they start in Philosopher's Stone. I'm so proud that most all of the original actors (except the first Dumbledore. R.I.P.) stayed with the films to the end!

[EvelynSnape1073]

To me there seems to be a dip. The first two were perfect then it started to go down hill. I think GoF was the worst. And then they seemed to get better. I think it has to do with the directors. This was taken from Wiki.

Chris Columbus directed the first two films, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, while Alfonso Cuarón directed the third, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Mike Newell directed the fourth, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. The fifth, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, was directed by David Yates, as was the sixth, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

In my opinion Chris Columbus and David Yates are the best directors. But we'll see how Mr.Yates does on the Deathly Hallows.

[Jonny7003]

Yes, I think they've been getting better with each instalment. They've improved cinematically, no longer the boring carbon copies of the books which Columbus brought to the screen. Don't get me wrong, I love Columbus' Potter films but they are the weakest in comparison to the rest in my opinion.

Cuaron comes along and he is not afraid of cutting out parts of the book to achieve a stunning film. Then Newell, who decided to make GOF into a thriller and then Yates, who added realism to the mix. His Deathly Hallows, according to the trailers and descriptions, are going to be the most grittiest and adult films of them all.

[Snuffy]

Originally Posted by Quaff

I really thought the sixth could have been the best if they had not put so much 'original' material in, the muggle cafe as a starting point seemed a waste of a scene which could have effectively been the film's goodbye to the Dursleys.

I agree with this some what. They should have focused on how the book started rather then trying to setup Harry for HBP. I suspect they wanted to add more to the fact that Harry was lonely and looking for love.

Originally Posted by Quaff

Also, at the end, when Harry hides and does not try to act even though he has the choice to, I felt that compromised his character completely. I don't feel Harry would have watched Dumbledore die without trying to help in some way if he had his wand and could move his body. In the book does he not struggle against the charm, forgetting Dumbledore's orders. Although I have seen the movie only once, a while ago, I remember Snape telling Harry to stay and him obeying, I didn't feel that was right either. Forgive me if my memory is leaky.

Well, here again they changed what was in the book to get another point across. And by reading that you didn't quite remember the subtle speechless exchange between Harry and Snape, then I am guessing you didn't get what the film makers were trying to do. They were trying to reinforce the fact that even though Harry did not trust Snape, he trusted Dumbledore and ultimately trusted Snape to do the right thing. In this instance I actually prefer the moive over the book.

Originally Posted by Quaff

So, I felt that the first five movies held Harry's character better and I fear they peaked at 5, after a good first two, a poor third and a better forth one. The sixth captured the mood very well but became a little too focused on the romance at times.

I have to disagree. But it might just be the fact that I didn't read the books until after I saw the movies. But I thought the worst ones were the first two and then GOF. Maybe its because I wasn't looking at what was in the movies compared to what was in the books at the time. Although after reading the books I still watched all the movies again and still have the same assessment.

Don't get me wrong, those three films are awesome and enjoyed them very much.

[OkeyDokey]

Sadly, I think they're getting worse. I hope that doesn't reflect upon DH1/2 as my expectation of both movies are they will be the best.

[Wimsey]

Originally Posted by Snuffy

I agree with this some what. They should have focused on how the book started rather then trying to setup Harry for HBP. I suspect they wanted to add more to the fact that Harry was lonely and looking for love.

It needed to focus on how the story started, not the book. The movie opted to tell a different story than did the book: the book told a story about hard/right choices in personal politics, whereas the movie told a story about hard/right choices in sexual politics. Personal politics include sexual politics, of course, but it also includes things like choices of mentors, followers, allies, enemies, etc.

Also, remember that the book basically started with a "Previously on Harry Potter" montage. I'm not sure how that would have worked on film, or even how necessary it was: this story relied very little on plot points established in prior tales.

Now, I'm not sure that changing the story made the film "worse" than the prior films: the films should and must be evaluated by how well they work as films regardless of whether there was any original source material. After all, many, many more people buy tickets (and still more rent DVDs) than read the books. Regardless, the fact that the first two films completely failed to tell any story whereas the next four all told stories pretty well indicates that the films got better after the first two.

Originally Posted by Snuffy

Well, here again they changed what was in the book to get another point across. And by reading that you didn't quite remember the subtle speechless exchange between Harry and Snape, then I am guessing you didn't get what the film makers were trying to do. They were trying to reinforce the fact that even though Harry did not trust Snape, he trusted Dumbledore and ultimately trusted Snape to do the right thing. In this instance I actually prefer the moive over the book.

My problem wa

Originally Posted by Snuffy

I have to disagree

Also, people are forgetting their Harry Potter history! Fans went ballistic after both Order and Prince because Harry was "out of character" in both books. Why was Harry "angry" all of a sudden: he'd never been angry before! Why was Harry interested in Ginny?!? He never was interested in her before!!! Etc., etc. (This also happened big time for Hermione after Prince: when did she become insecure or, gasp, interested in Ron?!?!?) Of course, in part, it was dynamic development of the characters: but it also was in no small part due to many fans having ideas about Rowling's characters that were wildly at odds with everything she'd written! (That was particularly true about Harry's anger streak and his tendency to feel isolated from everyone else: Rowling just amped it up a bit with 15 year old testosterone levels!)

Indeed, Rowling herself singled out that particular point when talking about the Order film on (I think) the Jonathan Ross show: it captured Harry's anger and isolation very well. As that was the heart of that particular story, that was absolutely critical. Of course, the more general criticism of whether Rowling's story was itself necessary is another issue altogether: Order could well be the least popular of Rowling's stories, after all. However, those criticisms pretty much mirrored the criticisms of the book from 2003, even without all the criticisms of Rowling's writings. (Order was by far the worse rated of the HP films by critics, although audiences preferred it substantially over Stone or Chamber.)

Originally Posted by Snuffy

But I thought the worst ones were the first two and then GOF. Maybe its because I wasn't looking at what was in the movies compared to what was in the books at the time. Although after reading the books I still watched all the movies again and still have the same assessment.

The first two films treated the books like they were historical documentaries, and ones more interested in showing "facts" than advancing theses for why things happened. Critics complained about the lack of story, and audience members complained about the lack of "point" (i.e., story!).

Now, enjoyability is not equal to quality: after all, people seem to enjoy the Twilight films, yet nobody thinks that they are quality movies. We've discussed the numbers ad nauseum on the Box Office thread, but the process behind the pattern is relevant here. The huge drop in audience after the first film and again after the 2nd film show that they turned off audiences at twice the rate that the subsequent films have done. The drop induced by Chamber is equal to the drop induced by Goblet and Order combined. (We do not yet know how big the return on Prince will be, of course, but it probably will be pretty good.)

[Bella_Crucio_U]

To me there seems to be a dip. The first two were perfect then it started to go down hill. I think GoF was the worst. And then they seemed to get better. I think it has to do with the directors. This was taken from Wiki.

For me it's like a hill haha. SS and Cos were ok but not great. PoA and GoF were the best to me. Then the hill drops. OotP and HBP were just...eh. I actually really hated OotP. I'm hoping that with DH 1 and 2 the dip will go up again but as Yates hasen't impressed me yet, I just don't know what to expect. DH surely looks better than OotP and HBP and all the actors/actresses seem to agree. I guess we'll see.

[PotterFanDuh]

Originally Posted by koston

i completely agree with this. it wasnt loyal to the book at all

I actually really liked the HBP movie, but not because it was loyal to the book, which it wasn't. The reason I enjoyed the movie was because of the lighter and slightly more humorous side to the movie that was created in order to contrast to the dark ends to the two films before that. However, I really wish we could have seen Harry and Ginny's relationship, and I don't think they should have put the burning scene in.

I think the movies are getting better in their own ways. It's not that magical fairy-tale-fantasy-adventure theme anymore, it's darker, much darker, and I like how the different directors' styles have made each movie into something completely different. OotP stuck remarkably close to the original plot lines. HBP had a nice turn to the lighter side of things for certain parts in the movie. DH just looks plain epic.

[x_shannon_x]

I think they are getting better, though more difficult to do. As the HP-world gets more complex and the story progresses, there is much editing that needs to take place. It is difficult to decide what to put in and take out to tell a complete story in a 2h30min film.

I loooooved the third movie (though it seems to be the least popular) because it was more of a concept film that the previous films. More than anything, you could sense the atmosphere, and it was visually dynamic (and isn't the visual important in movies, seeing as it is something you can't have in a book?).

[FakeHarryPotter]

For me, one and two were pretty bad, three and four were awsome, five was bad, six good, and DH looks awsome!

Think about it, if the film was just like the book, would book fans really want to see it? Or like it? It wouldn't add anything to the Potter world. It would be a bland copy of the book. I'm not saying I like the cuts, but for instance I loved the additional scenes of POA and GOF.

[merrymarge]

I enjoyed the movies. I didn't care for the fifth at first, because I thought the pace was rushed. I like HBP, because it seemed closer to the books and the pace was slower. There are good points and bad in all the movies. I just hope that DH will be epic. It's the last one, unless someone decides to remake all the movies in 10 years or more.