Do you think the movies would have been better if they were animated?

[Oreo55]

Well, the aspect I'd most like if the movies were animated is that the characters would look more true to the books. I sometimes see the actors pictures in my head whenever I read the books, and if it was animated, I don't think I'd have that problem. Also, the special effects (such as during the Quidditch matches) would blend in with the scenery a lot better.

[AL_Patterson]

I like live action best but I bet they'll probably make them animated one day.

[stunnedtina]

I don't think I would have liked them as much as I do if they were animated. I like animated movies but very few. Like I love Disney movies but I'm not much of an animated movie kind of person. I love them just the way they are.

[MichaelD]

Eeww. No. I really don't have a taste for animated movies. The last animated movie that I liked was The Lion King.

[Hysteria]

If it was in the style of Nightmare Before Christmas then I think it would look amazing, but not work as well as with real actors.

[Lillbet]

Originally Posted by Oreo55

Pros: The characters would be able to look how they're portrayed in the book. Ron would have freckles, Hermione's hair would be bushier, Harry would have green eyes, etc. There would be no (or less, at least) bad or amateurish acting; when the characters cry or display raw emotion, it would be more believable. The movies might be longer and/or more true to the book, too, because making an animated movie would be less expensive (I'm assuming) than a non-animated one.

Cons: It would make the movies seem very childish. Generally, when people think of animated movies, they think "kid's movie", dismissing movies like The Simpson's Movie and the majority of anime movies. The animation may be bad; if it was inconsistent or unrealistic looking, no one would want to go. And because it would be labeled as a kid's movie, I doubt many people would attend the theater or buy the movies unless they were hardcore Potter fans or families with children.

Interesting points, all. Here's my take:

While putting the work in the hands of paid illustrators might get us something closer to what we imagine, we'd still have the same rows about how the characters just don't look right. The only way for that to really work would be to get JKR actively involved, I s'pose. But then you're never going to please absolutely everyone.

And I really don't think cartoons displaying emotion would be more believable than real people displaying emotion- Disney animators, for example, model their characters on human stand-ins. While there might be a touch more of genuine feeling from a human model who didn't just have to run, duck, dodge and dive as Radcliffe does before bursting into tears, it's not any more genuine in the end. Hiring a kid to stand in front of you to cry while you draw him is not going to be any more effective, imo.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a crying cartoon wouldn't net any sympathy at all from me. When I was a child I saw Disney's Fox and the Hound (the original one) and I teared up because the fox and hound were cuuuuute and furry and I was a kid who... sympathized with cartoon animals.

As an adult I doubt I'd be as affected. I'm not alone, really. I rented "Titan AE" (meh) years after it came out and skipped Disney's updated animated "Treasure Island" though for a time I was intrigued by the promise of both, having been a fan of anime for many years. However, neither truly appealed to me as a movie goer, partially because they were animated and clearly aimed at preteens with themes of alienation, isolation, teen angst, puppy love, etc. throughout. Not to mention totally annoying soundtracks. But since they haven't joined the pantheon of classics I'd say those two movies didn't even resonate with their intended audiences.

Since the movies are based on a book series intended for kids/preteens I'd say animating them would be pushing their luck in terms of universal appeal. I can say for sure that I never would have bothered with them myself.

Originally Posted by Oreo55

But then again, with the technology we have today, if we made a computer animated movie (like Shrek, Over the Hedge, Cars, Monster House), the characters would look very realistic. Look at The Polar Express -- I think it would be very cool if the HP movies were animated like that, but if they were animated like Curious George, with characters with distorted forms and bright animation, it would be a mess.

While I agree that certain forms of animation would work, I think (again) that the key would be changing animators to suit the tone of each movie. For PoA, for example, you'd want an earthier style than Sorceror's Stone and OotP would be darker and creepier- Tim Burton-y.

By the way, "Polar Express" seriously freaked me out, so I won't back you there- Augsberg's original drawings are fantastic, but in 2D they are... scary.

Edit: in this weeks "Newsweek" there's an article about animated films aimed primarily at adults. I don't mean the really aggro stuff, but comparing why "Shrek" works for adults and how Japanese anime is appealing to a wider, more adult audience with the new "Paprika" and films like "Tokyo Godfathers" and so on. I think there are some clips on their website.

[MagicianGirl]

I'm one of the rare few who thinks that IF the movies were animated it will come out better than live action. In animation there's no limit on what they can do especially with the scenes that involves lots of magics and tricks.Plus, IMO, the acting wouldn't be too lame or over dramatize. But that's just me

[Oreo55]

Originally Posted by Lillbet

Interesting points, all. Here's my take:

While putting the work in the hands of paid illustrators might get us something closer to what we imagine, we'd still have the same rows about how the characters just don't look right. The only way for that to really work would be to get JKR actively involved, I s'pose. But then you're never going to please absolutely everyone.

And I really don't think cartoons displaying emotion would be more believable than real people displaying emotion- Disney animators, for example, model their characters on human stand-ins. While there might be a touch more of genuine feeling from a human model who didn't just have to run, duck, dodge and dive as Radcliffe does before bursting into tears, it's not any more genuine in the end. Hiring a kid to stand in front of you to cry while you draw him is not going to be any more effective, imo.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a crying cartoon wouldn't net any sympathy at all from me. When I was a child I saw Disney's Fox and the Hound (the original one) and I teared up because the fox and hound were cuuuuute and furry and I was a kid who... sympathized with cartoon animals.

As an adult I doubt I'd be as affected. I'm not alone, really. I rented "Titan AE" (meh) years after it came out and skipped Disney's updated animated "Treasure Island" though for a time I was intrigued by the promise of both, having been a fan of anime for many years. However, neither truly appealed to me as a movie goer, partially because they were animated and clearly aimed at preteens with themes of alienation, isolation, teen angst, puppy love, etc. throughout. Not to mention totally annoying soundtracks. But since they haven't joined the pantheon of classics I'd say those two movies didn't even resonate with their intended audiences.

You make some good points. I'm a huge fan of anime, too, which is one of the reasons I thought of this thread. I think I'd get emotional even if the characters were animated -- I do so when I watch anime, but it depends on how real and well-orchestrated the scene is. A lot people, however, wouldn't get as upset or sad seeing an animated character cry as they would a real person, which is another thing to add to the "Cons" list.

Originally Posted by Lillbet

While I agree that certain forms of animation would work, I think (again) that the key would be changing animators to suit the tone of each movie. For PoA, for example, you'd want an earthier style than Sorceror's Stone and OotP would be darker and creepier- Tim Burton-y.

By the way, "Polar Express" seriously freaked me out, so I won't back you there- Augsberg's original drawings are fantastic, but in 2D they are... scary.

Definitely, the style of animation is EXTREMELY important. And I agree, I didn't like the Polar Express's style much, myself -- I just didn't think it worked in that context. But I think it might work with Harry Potter.

[popcornzyum]

they wouldnt have been better if they were animated. but i would still watch them if they were made. we still have to have the good old originals though!

[IntricateLogic]

NO.

If they were animated, they couldn't be as realistic, you wouldn't see all the effects, it would not be as dark as it should be, we couldn't criticize or compliment acting skills...Animated movies work for some things (usually comedies for kiddies, with the exception of like,Shrek, and Polar Express [I know, not a comedy], which is awesome for anyone) but not the HP series

[PaRTyGiRL089]

i think it would be better, not!

[sllagnire]

I don't think so. Part of the charm of the Harry Potter books is that they are so real even though they are so obviously fiticious. I think that having them animated would loose part of that realness (is that a word? oh well, it is now.) that makes the books so special.

[DarkDaysAhead]

No way.

The only kind of animation I could probably tolerate would be something "Shrek-like".

[HPAddict92]

I would rather have a live (for lack of a better word) movie than an animated movie. O agree with Oreo 55 on her views on what would make animation good and what would make it less than desirable.
I would watch them but I doubt I would watch them as often as I watch the regular movies. They would be less influential and I think would have less fans. Very childish.
I also agree with Oreo55 on the type of animation. The Polar express-type animation would be less childish than Clifford animation. It would be much more detailed and realistic.
I actually like the actors and special features that you can't get in drawing or clay-mation and though the films aren't perfect I'm happy with the general way they are made.

[underscore]

I could only see it working as a Studio Ghibli series of films. There are definately areas in which animation would make it better than live action. Like mentioned already, there are both pros and cons. I don't think the pros of live action outweigh the pros of animation though.

[cgold]

I like the idea of a Harry Potter cartoon series once the movies are done but I much prefer that they had actors and a real movie. As a huge fan of Rupert, it would have been really bad not to have known about him at all because these movies were just animated and I just think that the movies are better for it. Now if only they could fix the stories and make the characters and plot deeper, the movies as is would be perfect.

Cheers

[Oreo55]

Originally Posted by cgold

I like the idea of a Harry Potter cartoon series once the movies are done but I much prefer that they had actors and a real movie. As a huge fan of Rupert, it would have been really bad not to have known about him at all because these movies were just animated and I just think that the movies are better for it. Now if only they could fix the stories and make the characters and plot deeper, the movies as is would be perfect.

Cheers

Cheers to you, too. And, yes, my biggest problem with the movies is that they cut so much out and changed some minor things about the character's personalities. It's understandable that they'd have to cut things out, but they cut so much out of PoA and GoF (they barely skimmed by WHY Moody turned out to be Crouch Jr.) that parts of the movie didn't make sense at all.

[JediWitch]

Hmm...personally, after seeing the incredible Harry Potter fan-art, i think the movies would have looked great animated. Of course, the question is the type of animation...

I love the work of Miyazaki, and think that would have been very cool (Look at some of his longer films-if he could keep the audiences entertained for a good 2 hours, then less editing on HP!). I would have loved to see the movies in traditional animation (Heck, even Disney hadn't completely failed at the style in 2001...i thought "Treasure Planet" looked great), but that's also because i'm a huge "Lion King" fan, and love the style

Then there's the computer animation...i knew the style used for "The Polar Express" would have been perfect for HP when i first saw the trailer in front of POA. Not to mention, Warner Bros. owns the rights to both movies...but the problem is, "Polar Express" was released in 2004, while the HP movies began in 2001...a few years behind. Similar effects were used in "Happy Feet," also a WB movie. Of course, the problem is, they released Harry Potter a bit too early...

Other than that, although modern CGI would have been perfect (if perfected a bit earlier), and how cool it would have been to mix anime with a now-classic book, it would have been best with with computer animation, similar to "Shrek" and "Over the Hedge" These films have the most realistic effects (necessary to keep all the details created in the books), and would have looked great.

[Wright1771]

NO!
NO!
and for a third time...NO!

[popcornzyum]

no because animated movies dont have the same feel as a proper one. you get to see what the characters look like from someone elses point of view and i dont like that, i still love animated movies though