harrypotter 34 replies

Please wait...

yod@

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

14th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,898 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

are harrypotter so popular as they are made out to be, has any one read all the books ,i've read the thid one and it was o.k the movies were average , the second one was crap what do you think?




Dreadnought[DK] VIP Member

Grumpy Admin

202,715 XP

7th March 2003

0 Uploads

19,294 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

The films are good and visually beautiful. However, as with all adaptions of books they leave out certain details. In my opinion book three and four are the best. The new one is not as good as the fourth, but it's nice and long.




Vertigo

Heel commentator

50 XP

24th October 2002

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

The books are great. I don't think too much of the first one, but the general feel of the series isn't matched by anything else I've read. As for the movies... well, the original was average and of course suffered heavily by comparison when Fellowship Of The Ring came out a month or two later. The sequel was absolutely abysmal, even worse as The Chamber Of Secrets happened to have been my favourite of the book series before Order Of The Phoenix came out. Haven't seen Prisoner Of Azkaban yet, probably go tomorrow. Imo Harry Potter doesn't really work in a movie format. Even if it was done properly (which it isn't, more in a minute), it would simply work better as a television series; one which takes a storyline *based* on the books rather than trying (and failing) to adapt Rowling's work. So, where they went wrong. The most painful and hideous mistake is the casting (apart from Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, who is great). The primary headache is Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, whose career, as Cosmo Landesman pointed out, is based solely on how he looks in geeky glasses. The kid simply cannot act- try comparing him to Haley Joel Osment (or the kid in About A Boy if you're looking for a decent British-accented child actor), I dare you. Harry is meant to be someone the audience can project themselves into, someone to empathise and understand. In the books Harry is more the pair of eyes than anything else, but Radcliffe can't even seem to manage that. I'm an Alan Rickman fan, he's great, but alas he was miscast as Snape. Snape should be nasty and unpleasant, the movie version seems like he's itching to break out the bondage and start molestering the students (yes that's nasty and unpleasant, but in a very different way). Then there's Richard Harris as Dumbledore. I know you shouldn't speak ill of the dead, and he did some great stuff in his time, but the guy's looked like a corpse for years, Dumbledore's meant to break out of the stereotype of stuffy old man and be a man of energy and power. Harry doesn't even realise Dumbledore's especially old until the fourth book. Rupert Grint isn't how I'd picture Ron either, but Emma Watson would be great as Hermione if only directed properly (and uglyfied somewhat. You've got to wonder why the film version of Harry doesn't ask her out for a few butterbeers). Which brings me on to the next mistake. The series is too "kiddy" and dumbed down. The original book was a discovery of a new world, complete with a set of new and very deep pains; the second showed Harry fulfill everyone's expectations and prove he's a hero as well as just a famous face. Absolutely nothing of this carries over into the movies, it's all just a spurt of soundtrack when we're supposed to find out/feel something, and you get no feeling that the characters are real people like you and me, just that all the various wacky antics they get up to are part of a day's work. Best the villain and have a jolly good time, etc. The fact that they use the cheesy American for-the-kids lightning-font for the title tells it all, as well as choosing Chris Columbus of Home Alone fame as director. I know I keep saying "it's not like the book", "it should be like the book", etc, but the fact is that the movies are trying to be direct ports of book to film, so therefore comparisons are necessary. If they were merely based on the books rather than being straight ports they could be judged in their own right and probably come off looking a damn sight better. On the plus side though, the movies are quite beautiful as Dreadnought says.




Urak'kul

Feel the fire

50 XP

26th February 2004

0 Uploads

3,625 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

I liked the books and liked both movies, cant wait for the 3rd movie(june 10th)




Dreadnought[DK] VIP Member

Grumpy Admin

202,715 XP

7th March 2003

0 Uploads

19,294 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

I disagree with you on the casting, Vertigo.




Vertigo

Heel commentator

50 XP

24th October 2002

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

Fair enough, how so?




yod@

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

14th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,898 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

the third being directed by alfonso cuaron may make a difference me thinks

he is a good director




Yannick

A psychedelic experience.

50 XP

16th April 2004

0 Uploads

10,644 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

Well yeh the books wree all good, but the movies suked. maybe the third will be better




perry07

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

15th February 2004

0 Uploads

6,510 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

atleast the girl has finally sprouted some boobs :naughty:




yod@

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

14th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,898 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

:o :eek: :uhoh: really!!