Best HP Director

[thePuff003]

This is not including their work outside Harry Potter. From their Harry Potter films, which person do you think has given the best direction ?

Now, some members will probably come here and use the differences between the books and films as a strike against their direction, but I do not consider that a fault because the adaptation process is developed by a number of people, including Jo. In a director, I look for their ability to tweak out the best performances from the cast, choosing camera angles, setting the ground work for the cinematographer, guiding the editing/pacing .... just forming the whole look, feel and structure of the film.

Anyway, personally, I think it's a tie between Cuaron and Yates, who have both established a unique visual style throughout their films.

All 4 Directors:    

---

Chris Columbus (Philosopher's Stone & Chamber of Secrets): Alfonso Cuaron (Prisoner of Azkaban): Mike Newell (Goblet of Fire): David Yates (Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince & Deathly Hallows):

[HuskyCrown]

I would have to say Yates. Order of the Phoenix and Deathly Hallows Part 1 were absolutely fantastic in my opinion, and Half-Blood Prince was an okay (although boring) adaptation. Cauron's was close, though.

[PrezLeefun]

I will agree with Yates (with exception being HBP which was IMO ridiculously poor for a book adaptation)

However I do not think we should discount Columbus, yes go ahead jump up my butt Columbus haters. He set the standard and got three Oscar nominations for SS. He put up the bar at a high point, and IMO they have mostly gone up from there, but not below and therefore are as a group excellent films.

[bellatrix93]

I have to say Cauron. PoA has always been my favourite, with DH as a close second. But then again I didn't like OotP much and I simply disliked HBP, so I'm no great fan of Yates and I feel that so much better could've been done with OotP and HBP. I don't have much objection to Colombus, myself. In fact, I think the first two movies have a wonderful magical feeling about them, that the rest of the series doesn't have.
Anyways, in order:
- Alfonso Cauron.
- Chris Colombus.
- David Yates.
- Mark Newell.

[thePuff003]

Half-Blood Prince seems to get a lot of criticism from fans, yet I think that based on its cinematic qualities, it is a much better film than Order of the Phoenix (which was still a good film). I think he improved considerably as a director.

[mrsmalfoy96]

I would have to say David Yates or Chris Columbus.

[Charity_Burbage]

My favourite is Mike Newell. "Goblet of Fire" is my favourite of the films. The Yule Ball is so beautiful it nearly brings me to tears, and I loved the more romantic feel that this film had (obviously helped by Patrick Doyle's characteristically romantic score). I don't think any of the other films could or should have that sort of mood, because GOF is on the cusp, so to speak - the characters are becoming young adults and starting to fall in love or have crushes - but the world becomes much darker after the close of GOF. Hats off to Mike Newell for portraying so beautifully a major theme of this novel, especially since it pertains to this book more than any other. Also, Mad-Eye is brilliant and such an important driving force in the film. I like how they dealt with and expanded the part played by Barty Crouch Senior, too. I thought leaving out the Ludo Bagman subplot was a good move. I also loved how Cedric Diggory was portrayed, and the duel with Voldemort in the graveyard.

My second favourite would be Alfonso Cuaron. An excellent film again, and my second favourite of the series. The scenes with the Patronus by the lake are beautiful, as is Thewliss's portrayal of Professor Lupin, and scenes such as the one on the bridge where he is talkiing to Harry about his mother Lily.

Maybe these particular books were more naturally suited to film, more easily adaptable, containing the kind of storylines which naturally translate more easily to film. The first book sets up the world and has to introduce us to so many things, and the joy of the first film for me is really in seeing all those wonderful characters and sets for the first time, rather than following the actual story.

[HedwigOwl]

I can't say that I have a favorite. Each director was confined to the adaptation from book to film.

In chronological order, then:

Chris Columbus - did a great job creating an excellent visual of the magical world, true to the book, setting a solid basis for all following films. Also think that from Harry's very young viewpoint, an excellent depiction.

Alfonso Cuaron - masterful depiction capturing the mood and gathering danger in the series; excellent showing of the time-turner sequence (as written in the one timeline theory).

Mike Newell - considering the liberties taken with the adaptation, I think this was a very good film; good nuances with foreshadowing relationships.

David Yates - I have to say I enjoy Yates' view of the HP films he's directed; HBP had a surprising amount of humor considering the seriousness of the book overall; judging from DH 1, I think we can expect a satisfying film conclusion in DH 2.

[J17]

Yates is my favorite. Next would be Columbus, who while slavishly true to the source was able to inject a since of magic into the first two films that the others lack. Third would be Cuaron. I like some of his decisions, but in terms of the structure and adapation I rate it pretty low. Cuaron seemed to be unable to keep himself in check. Sometimes he let his artistic fancy get in the way of the storytelling. The bird flying down to the whomping willow and being killed was artisticly nice and gave a better view of the new grounds, but was also frivilous. Newell rates terribly beneath the rest. It was a fast paced film, and wasn't terrible. I, however, despise Newell's style or lack thereof. I find all his films (not just GOF) visually boring and lacking in style. His Prince of Persia film suffered greatly from his style, but like GOF I am able to like the film. He just seems to be lacking in imagination. He sets up shots in the most boring ways, and after Cuaron's visual flare Newell's just felt bleh. Cinematography, blocking, and music play a big part in my opinion of any film and in a film like Harry Potter the director needs to be able to use all these to bring out the fanasty, wonder, and magic of the world and Newell sadly didn't have it in him. He was too concerned with bringing a british boarding school flare to the film which just felt wrong.

So in order:
1.Yates
2.Columbus
3.Cuaron
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.Newell

2&3 are interchangeable

[gertiekeddle]

Originally Posted by bellatrix93

In fact, I think the first two movies have a wonderful magical feeling about them, that the rest of the series doesn't have.

That's very true for me too. While I don't think the first two movies are exceptional good, they transfer a magic from the books to the movies, which I miss a bit in PoA, and totally in GoF to DH. It's that magic what makes me re-watch them on rainy winter days. Plus I watched them first before I even read the books, so they might just be always special to me for that reason alone.

If Yates had managed to get the same 'magic' into the films, he would probably rate higher in my view, but since I also think he and Newell don't manage to get suspense into the story, I usually can't really watch these movies with much pleasure. GoF might become an exception, which I disliked first, but grew into it slowly due to it's fantastic images.

Yates has great scenes, good ideas, and clearly is a good film maker: alas, the movies don't work for me. It feels like many nice scenes added together, but which don't become a whole story. As such I don't miss single scenes, I miss an inspiration what brings the magical world - or at least the film plot - alive.

I like Cuaron's adaption, because he did an very own film by creating a very own magical world. Imo that's needed to keep some suspense alive. He so managed in my view what Columbus didn't (who just stayed too closely to JK's world): getting both the magic and the plot transfered into an accurate movie. It's a whole film.

So while I'm no huge fan of the film all overall my ratings would be:

- Alfonso Cauron.
- Chris Colombus.
- Mark Newell.
- David Yates.

[MC2456]

Alfonso Cuaron. He brought something new to Harry Potter.

[Grymmditch]

Wow, I'm a little surprised (but pleasantly so) that Columbus is getting props here.
In many ways, the first two films are favorites of mine, exactly because of the sense of childlike wonder and magic they are imbued with. They matched the books beautifully, in that regard, the books were very much the same. CC really did set everything in motion, and the subsequent films could not have have existed without his work and dedication.
For that reason, he might be my fave.

I also really like Alphonse Cuaron's work on the the third film, it was very artsy, but not overdone for artsy's sake. So, if CC has competition, it's here. I'm really not sure who I liked better. I would've liked to have seen Cuaron direct another.
(I would've liked to have seen Guillermo Del Toro direct one too!)

Yate's is okay, but he doesn't stand out to me in any particular way. Something about the last several films have seemed a bit lackluster to me. They're action films now, with magic in them, but they're not... magical.

Newell ticked me off with the way he ruined parts of GoF. Some parts were really good, admittedly, but DD's character he nearly ruined. I also thoght the Quidditch World cup section seemed rushed at the end, we see none of the actual match, it just jumps to the DEs. Awkward. Also, the way he forwarded through time as Harry waits for his Dragon challenge just seemed awkward and uncreative. Lastly, from the interviews I've seen of the making of GoF, the guy is just annoying and rather taken with himself.

[Noldus]

Cuarón is the best HP director IMHO. The acting improved under him, he is an emotional storyteller, moves the camera in unique ways and includes a lot of subtle symbolism as well; the way he puts Harry in front of the huge pendulum clock says so much without saying anything at all. It not only gives you a sense of Harry's loneliness, but also of how small and vulnerable he is in a greater perspective because if he takes a step back, he will be chopped to pieces. Cuarón creates a universe around Harry with shots of the clock tower, the starry sky in the Great Hall and the astronomical instruments on DD's office to reinforce that this small individual once will make a big difference in the world.

Originally Posted by gertiekeddle

If Yates had managed to get the same 'magic' into the films, he would probably rate higher in my view, but since I also think he and Newell don't manage to get suspense into the story, I usually can't really watch these movies with much pleasure.

You think Goblet of Fire lacks suspense? The maze sequence kept me on the edge of my seat.

Regarding Yates, he actually said he was interested in "bringing an emotional reality to the stories, pulling it slightly away from fantasy."

You might wonder why the producers hired him in the first place for that statement alone, but considering he had done a lot of political TV-dramas before it was an appropriate, albeit daring choice which I think paid off.

The question is, why bring him back? Not because the material in either HBP or DH suited him particularly and I don't think the producers singled him out more so than the other HP directors either because, as I understand it, they all declined the offer to direct another Potter. No, it was probably because they wanted more consistency and continuity for the last films. Clearly, the producers liked Yates and knew what they could expect from him for the latest installments. He is a suitable franchise director because he acknowledges that the previous films did exist by spreading out references and details for the fans here and there and using flashbacks to inform the audience and evoke emotions. At the same time his versatile, if unremarkable, style mixing genres (much like the books) and constant experiencing to make them different from each other as opposed to Columbus, keeps the franchise fresh for audiences.

[jan74]

Well, I do have my favourite, but it´s difficult to compare directors when some directors only have made one film, while others have made two or three. It doesn´t feel fair.

Also I find that the qualities which are needed for each film differs according to its place in the series and what kind of story it´s based on. The Harry Potter series is a coming of age series and the progress and tone of the films should reflect this. The three first films are more stand alone films with a limited scope, more directed towards children and more overtly concerned with representing the magical and fairy story aspects of Rowling´s world. This reflects the nature of the original stories, but the series doesn´t progress in the same fashion, so neither should the films in my opinion.


Something I prefer with Yates direction in OoTP and HBP is the focus on characterization, the range of characterization and the quality of the dialogue. His choice of direction puts the emotions and the relationship between the characters in the foreground and the magic which is shown mostly underlines these emotions.

Yates also appears to be a more versatile director than the others, which means that he seems more likely to adjust which cinematic tools he uses according to the needs of the story. Since Rowling´s series contains such a mix of many different ingredients, I think it fits a director with a versatile film style.

I prefer how Yates in OoTP and HBP is more economical and more disciplined than the other directors. I found that the films made by the other directors, despite their differences, all included a fair amount of material/detail which was either irrelevant or redundant to the film as a whole, or forgot the importance of trimming scenes to create a better flow. OoTP and HBP seemed more consistent and focused in their choice of motifs, symbols and ways of presenting the progress of the story and less bent on being inventive for the sake of being inventive.

My second favourite is Cuaron and I am a little curious to see what he could have come up with if he had gotten the chance to make a second HP film. Some of his camera work and his imagery was just superb, but I found that he too often simply indulged in being creative and imaginative in terms of magical effects and forgot to discard those which didn´t flow naturally with the scenes they were in.

[ILuvDarkMarks]

I'd say Yates, due mostly to DH1. That is my favorite movie of the series and I believe it was incredibly well done. I think he really captured the magic that is Harry Potter through both the emotion and the actual magic. OotP and HBP may not be the best book-to-movie adaptations, but there is still an element that makes these movies stand out from the rest. Yates gets the deeper meaning of the series: friendship, loyalty, bravery, etc. instead of just the magic.

I give a lot of credit to Columbus because he was able to get so much out of Dan, Rupert, and Emma when they were just kids. They still may have more or less read the lines and went through the motions they were told, but I was always very impressed with what each actor brought to the screen. Columbus started it all and for that I believe he deserves a big hand! And his movies were the best book-to-movie adaptations, which I greatly appreciate.

Newell was bad by any means but he did nothing to really stand out IMO, as Yates does. I just felt that, especially in the beginning, that each scene didn't have a definitive ending and melded into the next. It got better as the movie progressed, but I thought it was a little rushed.

Cuaron is my least favorite because he's the opposite of Yates. He decided to focus more on the magic and special effects than the story, and while it's not really a bad thing, I felt that it didn't work in his favor. I don't want to compare the book and movie, but there was so much left out of the movie that was central to the plot, and so the movie itself had a very thin plot. IMO, anyway.

[ohsnapkid]

Originally Posted by ILuvDarkMarks

Cuaron is my least favorite because he's the opposite of Yates. He decided to focus more on the magic and special effects than the story, and while it's not really a bad thing, I felt that it didn't work in his favor. I don't want to compare the book and movie, but there was so much left out of the movie that was central to the plot, and so the movie itself had a very thin plot. IMO, anyway.

I'll respectfully disagree with that - if anything, Cuarón's film is widely acknowledged as demonstrating that magic is simply part of the world and not something to be awed over, as well as not making a huge spectacle of the visual effects. Was POA full of imagery? Definitely, and a good amount was of course effect-oriented, but it was always the message and the theme that was the significant element of those scenes.

If we're ranking them simply on HP:

Alfonso Cuarón. He's my favorite director, but POA is an excellent and under-appreciated film on its own merits so I don't feel too biased here. He crafted the most personal, emotionally resonant, abstract, and mature film of the series. That's not even accounting for the visual changes and the incredible art design - which is even more impressive given how much of a departure it was from Columbus.

David Yates. He's been solid, if unspectacular, and I'm still sort of shocked he was given the reins to the last 4 films. Seriously, think about that: David Yates (who wasn't exactly known as an elite director at the time of OoTP) will have directed half of the 8 films. That's crazy to me. However, he's clearly a capable director and got some nice performances from the key cast members.

Chris Columbus. We all know his faults, but likewise most of us concede his films are undeniably entertaining and compulsively watchable. He was given an immense task and handled most of it admirably, even if the first 2 films weren't much more than direct adaptations aimed at a family audience.

Mike Newell. GoF had all the components of a big action flick with some personal drama (albeit teenage stuff), and he didn't squander that entirely. Still, I thought GoF was handled immaturely and had some horrible characterization. Glad he wasn't allowed to do more than 1 film.

[jan74]

OhSnapKid wrote: "I'm still sort of shocked he was given the reins to the last 4 films. Seriously, think about that: David Yates (who wasn't exactly known as an elite director at the time of OoTP) will have directed half of the 8films. That's crazy to me."

Well, it's certainly unexpected that Yates is chosen as a director for half of the HP films, but then again there might be many good reasons why it turned out the way it did, including chance.

The film studio may have decided that with the final two films to go it would be too risky to change the director. Or they might have judged that at this stage the core audience for the films is already established; it's not neccessary to provide something new and possibly "exciting".

Is or have any of the HP directors ever been remotely close to being considered "elite directors"? Except Columbus, who seems like a safe choice for a family audience, the HP directors weren't well known, any of them. From what I've heard other directors were originally asked to adapt Half-Blood Prince, but they turned the offer down. It either didn't fit with their schedule or they wanted to do their own work.

[thePuff003]

I found this scrap of information as to why Yates was chosen for HBP:

"The post-production material was so well-received by the studio that Yates was selected to direct the sixth instalment, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince."

Then there is this quote from Yates:

"they wanted to do a Harry Potter that felt realer, and more grown up .... What's smart about the studio and the producers is they have always wanted to push it a bit. It's a testament to their ambition to try and keep the franchise fresh. The bizarre thing is, I did one [film] and they asked me to stay for three more, so obviously they liked something."

I would have loved to have seen another film by Cuaron, but Yates (IMO) has clearly improved as a filmmaker from OOTP to DH 1. I think he's worthy of helming the final film and, as others have mentioned, he is quite versatile in his style. We have the social-realist tone to OOTP, the magical atmospheric theme to HBP, the gritty road movie of DH 1 and the soon-to-be fantasy epic of DH 2.

[HDVB]

1. Columbus Despite his flaws, I loved the first two and how magical they felt and how true to the books they were.
2. Newell Just sort of by default.
3. Cuaron I think he let his artistic vision and Latino heritage cloud his judgement when it came to plot/characters.
4. Yates I loved Deathly Hallows Part One, but in my opinion Order of the Phoenix is the worst HP movie and Half-Blood Prince is way too much teenage drama and not enough plot and character development. Each director has definitely brought something unique to the series, but they all have their faults as well...

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by HDVB

3. Cuaron I think he let his artistic vision and Latino heritage cloud his judgement when it came to plot/characters.

Any examples or suggestions for improvement except for axing those short (but necessary) shots of the whomping which in favour of a Marauder map explanation?

Originally Posted by thePuff003

I found this scrap of information as to why Yates was chosen for HBP:

Not necessarily the only reason. I also think it was because the producers and 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 had been established and didn'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.

Originally Posted by thePuff003

[/i]
Then there is this quote from Yates:

"they wanted to do a Harry Potter that felt realer, and more grown up .... What's smart about the studio and the producers is they have always wanted to push it a bit. It's a testament to their ambition to try and keep the franchise fresh. The bizarre thing is, I did one [film] and they asked me to stay for three more, so obviously they liked something."

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."