Jump to content

Series: Harry Potter


  • Please log in to reply

961 replies to this topic

#1

TWoP Dietrich

TWoP Dietrich

    TWoP Moderator

Posted Oct 18, 2008 @ 12:17 PM

The Harry Potter series of movies is something that, I hear, people on the Internet like to talk about.
  • 0

#2

gilmored

gilmored

    Video Archivist

Posted Oct 21, 2008 @ 2:34 PM

Soo.. no one wants to talk about HP?
Hmm, well to start it out.. what do you guys think about the actors that were cast for the roles.. to me Dan was always Harry, but Emma was always to pretty too be Hermione, they wrote Hermione to be all nerdy looking and not traditionally attractive till later on, but I always thought that she was gorgeous from the start. That being said, she acts circles around that role and she's just so adorable!
  • 0

#3

zelmia

zelmia

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 21, 2008 @ 2:49 PM

I have to disagree about the acting. She's not only the least experienced of the original leading cast, but she's also the only one who hasn't really perfected her craft at all, as far as I can see. The boys have all done other projects and seem to want to move forward with their careers beyond Harry Potter. Emma seems not to have the same drive.

Which is obviously fine, if that's really what she wants to do. I have read that there was some question about whether or not she would even be back for the last couple of installments. But if she does want to continue a career beyond "Hermione Granger" she'll have to start doing the homework.
  • 0

#4

TWoP Dietrich

TWoP Dietrich

    TWoP Moderator

Posted Oct 21, 2008 @ 7:16 PM

I liked Hermione a lot more in the first movie than I have in the later ones. I think it's because I bought her more as someone who would rigorously do her homework every night and sniff disapprovingly at those who didn't. As the series has gone on and the schoolwork becomes more and more tangential, she's just "a sidekick" instead of "the smart, studious one".
  • 0

#5

ethanvahlere

ethanvahlere

    Stalker

Posted Oct 21, 2008 @ 9:12 PM

I must admit my bias up front by saying Hermione is my favorite character, and I love Emma Watson in the role. That being said, if her character in the movies has become "a sidekick," I wonder how much of that is the studio softening the character. After all, Hermione does play a proactive role in the books from start to finish, and is always accepted as smart and studious, whereas in the movies, except for Prisoner of Azkaban, she has been relegated to being more of a sidekick, and I think that's too bad.
  • 0

#6

Split Ends

Split Ends

    Stalker

Posted Oct 21, 2008 @ 9:13 PM

Interesting point, TWoP Dietrich, and I can't disagree. I wonder how Hermione will be portrayed in the last movie(s).
  • 0

#7

BKs Nimo

BKs Nimo

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 22, 2008 @ 12:32 AM

I have to disagree about the acting. She's not only the least experienced of the original leading cast, but she's also the only one who hasn't really perfected her craft at all, as far as I can see. The boys have all done other projects and seem to want to move forward with their careers beyond Harry Potter. Emma seems not to have the same drive.

I agree with this. The words that she chooses to stress bug me. For example, in the train scene of GoF, her line "what you saw at the world cup" still bugs me. I agree that DR and RG embody their characters more so than EW. And, I always thought that she was too pretty to be Hermione based on the description given in the book.

I must admit my bias up front by saying Hermione is my favorite character

I like Hermione a lot as a character...but I don't know if I could be friends with someone like her in school. Gunners annoy me.
  • 0

#8

Split Ends

Split Ends

    Stalker

Posted Oct 22, 2008 @ 12:57 AM

Gunners annoy me.

I love you for saying "gunners." They annoy me too. Hermione is definitely a gunner, a great character, but independently, without Ron and Harry, she would not be interesting or fun at all.

Didn't Emma Watson have reservations about signing on for all the movies? I'm wondering if she questioned her desire to be an actress.
  • 0

#9

zelmia

zelmia

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 22, 2008 @ 1:37 AM

As the series has gone on and the schoolwork becomes more and more tangential, she's just "a sidekick" instead of "the smart, studious one".

Yes, and all the exposition they give her was much easier to buy in those days as well because we actually saw them studying or in class or whatever. We could believe that she really had read something in a book. But these days it's just so obvious that the screenwriter is using her as a mouthpiece for exposition.... Not that it wasn't when she was younger but... Oh you know what I mean...
  • 0

#10

Geeni

Geeni

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 22, 2008 @ 8:12 AM

Personally, I think the only characters who are perfectly cast are McGonagall, the Weasley parents, Lucius, and Voldemort. I adore Alan Rickman but he's a bit too old to play Snape, same with Oldman as Sirius.

The kids, on the other hand, are almost miscast. Especially Hermione, Watson can't act to save her life and has completely butchered the role in every way possible. We haven't seen Grint enough to judge, and Radcliffe...he has his good and bad days. I'm not really sure on the other "kid actors" though.

Who's looking forward to the next movie?
  • 0

#11

BKs Nimo

BKs Nimo

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 22, 2008 @ 11:15 AM

Who's looking forward to the next movie?

I am!! I'm still so pissed off that HBP was pushed back until next summer. I'm trying to get my firm to add an advance screening of the movie to the summer associate event schedule.

Even after having read HBP countless times, when I saw the preview, I got a bit scared. Ralph Fiennes' nephew gave me the willies with his young Voldemort portrayal.

The one thing I wonder about concerning this movie are the scenes with DD and Harry. I'm still in the Richard Harris was a way better DD than Michael Gambon. IMO, MG plays DD too harshly. RH's portrayal was the exact way that I had envisioned DD to be. I just don't think that MG will be able to pull of the cave scene/confrontation with Malfoy/Snape for those of who don't know with the needed softness that I took away from the book.
  • 0

#12

Geeni

Geeni

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 22, 2008 @ 11:52 AM

I agree with you somewhat about Dumbledore. Gambon plays him too...aggressively. Like, in GOF there was no reason for him to beat Harry up when he thought he put his name in the goblet (comparison here). But yet, he has that quirkiness/craziness of Dumbledore that is in the book. While Harris had that softness and understanding (and wisdom) of canon DD.

Even after having read HBP countless times, when I saw the preview, I got a bit scared. Ralph Fiennes' nephew gave me the willies with his young Voldemort portrayal.


I think it's also great that he looks JUST like a younger version of Christian Coulson, who played Tom in movie 2. The casting was perfect on that.

I'm trying to get my firm to add an advance screening of the movie to the summer associate event schedule.


I think there were test screenings on it in Chicago this past summer-it got pretty great reviews from the people who went.
  • 0

#13

Split Ends

Split Ends

    Stalker

Posted Oct 22, 2008 @ 3:17 PM

RH's portrayal was the exact way that I had envisioned DD to be.

Me too. I still picture Dumbledore as Richard Harris with a long beard. He had a gentle voice, and he was more frail than MG, which always worked for me with Dumbledore.
  • 0

#14

facetious

facetious

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 7:42 AM

Geeni - Personally, I think the only characters who are perfectly cast are McGonagall, the Weasley parents, Lucius, and Voldemort. I adore Alan Rickman but he's a bit too old to play Snape, same with Oldman as Sirius.


Agreed with the well cast ones (though Jason Isaacs' eyebrows still mess with my head every once in a while), but I've always disagreed with the latter argument - while both are indeed young by wizarding standards, Sirius has 13 years in Azkaban behind him and I never even notice that Rickman is older than the role when I watch him play Snape - it's partly the fact that Severus is supposed to be sort of grotesque anyway, the makeup hides it to my eye even though intellectually I understand the complaint. But I can picture nobody else in that role - the only way I can think to explain it is that he has Snape's comportment down perfectly. It encompasses both Snape's need to be in complete control and the fact that he never actually is.

Some of my personal favourites to add: Brannagh as Lockhart, Staunton as Umbridge. Of the younger actors, I've always liked Matthew Lewis as Neville, though his physical transformation between GoF and OotP was somewhat alarming - it took me forever when looking at those high-res stills that came out a while before the release that it was actually Neville. And I adore Richard Griffiths as Vernon, but ever since seeing OotP for the first time in between Withnail & I and then The History Boys it's changed the way I look at him..

I agree with the comments about Harris as Dumbledore, but I do think that Albus started to show off his power more as the series went on, so Gambon's portrayal wasn't totally out of place. (Except, yes, the Goblet scene bugged the crap out of me.)

About HBP, I remember finishing the book and thinking to myself, "Wow, this is my favourite in the series. .... oh my god what are they going to do to it in the film?" As much as I've enjoyed the films, they tend to rely a bit too much on action scenes to keep the pace up, often sacrificing character growth and key exposition, which is basically what makes up the entirety of HBP. My greatest fear is that they would - will - focus far too much on the love story, which I had nothing against in the book but which seems to be the most likely candidate to replace quidditch (although there presumably will be that too) and Triwizard Tasks. That said, I'm not judging it until I see it, and the trailer really had me excited before the delay.

Edited by facetious, Oct 24, 2008 @ 7:43 AM.

  • 0

#15

Serenachan

Serenachan

    Video Archivist

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 8:02 AM

Well, according to the leaked scropt parts, in HBP they are changing everything about the Harry/Ginny love story. To which I say, good for them. It can only be an improvement.
  • 0

#16

BKs Nimo

BKs Nimo

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 11:51 AM

Another perfect casting, IMO, was HBC as Bellatrix. As soon as I heard that she'd been cast in the role, I knew she'd do it justice. Also, the girl who plays Luna fits the Luna that I saw in my head after reading OotP.
  • 0

#17

syngates

syngates

    Channel Surfer

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 1:01 PM

I think Dan and Rupert were really amazing casting for Harry and Ron, Emma... not so much. The first movie she seemed alright, but they were kids then, none of them could really act at all. But she is still in the same place as the first movie, and its really grating because I mean, she's the female lead. She's a crucial part of the trio, and I feel bad for the poor girl, but Hermione really needs to be recast. As does Ginny, but for more shallow purposes. Of course when they got Bonnie, they didn't realize Ginny was supposed to grow up to be smoking hot, and you don't get that with Bonnie at all, its just like... well whatever. You can take her or leave her, and that wasn't the way Ginny was supposed to be at all. As for the adults, I believe for the most part the casting was spot on, and I agree that Richard Harris was the perfect Dumbledore and Michael Gambon needs to chill the hell out. I don't think Harris could have done everything Dumbledore needed to do the past few movies, nor in the few coming up, but Gambon's so aggressive I'm worried about the more emotional scenes he'll have to do in HBP. I know a lot of people dont agree with this, but I hated the casting of Lupin and Sirius.
I know Lupin was supposed to be shabby and everything, but I really just would have liked to see someone better looking. And Sirus, god, I know he was in Azkaban for over a decade, but he was still supposed to be hot, and as much as I love Gary Oldman, and I do, believe me, it just wasn't there. I just didn't feel the love for Sirius in the movies as I did in the books, and I cried when he died in the books, because Sirius was my favorite character.

All in all though, I'm totally looking forward to what they do with HBP, and I hope it was worth pushing back. Did they do that so they wouldn't have to deal with the Twilight backlash?
  • 0

#18

TWoP Dietrich

TWoP Dietrich

    TWoP Moderator

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 1:45 PM

A quick note on spoilers in this thread, which are generally being used correctly (thank you for that!):

In case there are people who are only watching the movies and haven't read the books, try to use spoiler bars on big plot developments that are yet to appear. But don't go overboard, because a whole page of black bars is hard to read.

Also, don't stress out if something is accidentally not spoilered out, whether it's in your post or someone else's. These things happen, and after all, the books have all been published.

Okay, carry on.
  • 0

#19

thuganomics85

thuganomics85

    Stalker

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 2:16 PM

Did they do that so they wouldn't have to deal with the Twilight backlash?


That could be part of it, but I remember hearing the main reason they did it is because The Dark Knight has already made so much money for Warner Brothers, that they don't really need this year, so they are delaying the release, so all the profit they make can go towards their 2009 year. Granted, WB has both Watchman and Terminator: Salvation coming out in 09, and both can potentially make some money, but probably not as much as HP will do.

Overall, I've enjoyed the movies, even if they aren't as great as the books. Of the child actor, Daniel Radcliffe is the most interesting, because he really has grown into the role and gotten better each movie. I remember finding him bland in the first one, but he was fantastic in the last one. Rupert Grint is great as Ron, but I feel like he's been getting the shaft lately, so I hope that changes. I can live with Emma Watson, but to be honest, I never really cared for Hermoine that much.

As for the adults: even if he is too old, I love Alan Rickman as Snape. As soon as he sneered the "Mr. Potter, our new celebrity" line, I knew he would be perfect for the role. Jason Issac is also spot on as Lucius, and Ralph Finnes truly is Voldermont, in the films.
  • 0

#20

janet a

janet a

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 2:44 PM

Yes, Rickman is fabulous.

Of course, I can't think of anything I've seen him in where he hasn't been fabulous. Hmmm.
  • 0

#21

Split Ends

Split Ends

    Stalker

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 4:06 PM

As for the adults: even if he is too old, I love Alan Rickman as Snape.

Agreed. I don't care if he's too old, because he delivers the lines with such awesomeness. I'm really interested in how he'll handle the in love with Lily Potter stuff, but he's Alan Rickman, so he'll rock it.

I wanted Judy Dench to be Delores Umbridge so damn badly. Imelda Staunton did wonderfully, but I've always wanted Dame Judy to show up in Harry Potter. I also think Emma Thompson is a great Trelawney.

And I've always liked the actress who plays Ginny. She was great as a little girl, and I have high hopes for her in the Half-Blood Prince.
  • 0

#22

BKs Nimo

BKs Nimo

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 5:22 PM

And I've always liked the actress who plays Ginny. She was great as a little girl, and I have high hopes for her in the Half-Blood Prince.

I think she's good, but I have the opposite reaction to her in comparison to EW as Hermione. Based on the description in the book, I think that the actress who plays Ginny isn't *pretty* enough to be Ginny. Yea, she's a cute girl, but she doesn't live up to the picture in my head based on JKR's description.
  • 0

#23

Geeni

Geeni

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 6:47 PM

I wanted Judy Dench to be Delores Umbridge so damn badly. Imelda Staunton did wonderfully, but I've always wanted Dame Judy to show up in Harry Potter.


I think casting for Umbridge is a tough thing to do. Not just because of the look, but because of the attitude. The Umbridge in the book is so vile and anger-inducing, but the one in the film wasn't as much because Imelda Staunton is so charming in real life, and you could see that in the movie. I got more of a "cute" vibe from her. I think the same would happen with any other lovable actress. Imelda was still great though.

Another one is McGonagall. Maggie Smith is fabulous and cool and fierce and everything else that McGonagall is. She's older but she still looks like she will kick your ass.

I think she's good, but I have the opposite reaction to her in comparison to EW as Hermione. Based on the description in the book, I think that the actress who plays Ginny isn't *pretty* enough to be Ginny. Yea, she's a cute girl, but she doesn't live up to the picture in my head based on JKR's description.


As an actress, I think she's extremely underrated (granted, she hasn't had anything to do in Harry Potter but I've seen her in other things). And actually, she's very pretty, but they downplay it in the films and she downplays it at public events; but I've seen candid (well...private) pics of her and the girl is quite gorgeous in a classical way.

I forgot to agree with Helena Bonham-Carter, that bitch owns every role she has.

Edited by Geeni, Oct 24, 2008 @ 7:45 PM.

  • 0

#24

zelmia

zelmia

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 24, 2008 @ 9:45 PM

I thought Staunton got it exactly right. Isaacs would actually have made an excellent Snape as well - he's certainly closer to the right age.

Part of the problem with Emma's acting is that the directors aren't really getting the required performance out of her. Having said that, it seems to me that they are getting the performance that was written for the character so... YMMV

Edited by zelmia, Oct 24, 2008 @ 9:45 PM.

  • 0

#25

facetious

facetious

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Oct 25, 2008 @ 5:09 AM

Right, I think part of the very idea of Umbridge was that she projected this aura of cuteness and lovability, despite being one of the most utterly vile characters in the entire series. That's why I loved Staunton in the role. Bonham Carter was fantastic as well, naturally, but it actually took me a bit to get used to her portrayal. I think it's just because the character herself is so bizarre. (I can't wait to see the duel between her and Molly in Deathly Hallows. And I hope so badly they don't cut the epic line, "Not my daughter, you bitch!")

I agree that one of the bigger problems in the series has been the way Ron and Hermione are written - Ron of course just gets sort of shunted to the side a lot in the films, criminally, and it seems like they've gone out of their way making Hermione as appealing (in every sense) as they can, when what made her charming in the books is that she's mostly kind of annoying. It's harder to pinpoint the other complaint that they've made her too much of a heroine, because it's not that book!Hermione isn't - it just seems like moments such as the Malfoy Slap are diminished because there's no contrast between her usual demeanour. And I don't think they spent enough time on the punishment Hermione devised for betraying the DA - it's supposed to illustrate that Hermione more than anyone of their generation (including Harry) grasps the scope of the impending war and understands that that means there are no longer any rules to play by (one of the pivotal moments in Hermione's character growth).

On another topic entirely, there was a moment in GoF where the film actually enlightened something about the book's plot that I had failed to grasp - when Snape accused Harry of stealing potions supplies. In the book he just says, "Boomslang skin. Gillyweed. Both come from my private stores, and I know who stole them." .. "You were out of bed the night my office was broken into!" I'd read the book four times before seeing the film, and it never occurred to me that by implication boomslang skin was stolen from him recently - I just thought (as was of course JKR's intention) that he was bringing up the boomslang skin as a past grievance from Harry's second year. Not to mention, Snape clearly never actually even realised that Dobby broke in, because it was on a different night entirely - House-elves are good at keeping quiet. I really have to applaud JKR's foreshadowing, because she always slips it in with other things and never just puts out random information that would make the reader pause and go, "Why do we need to know that?" But anyway, the film made a bigger point of this, with Snape accosting Harry in the storeroom and making a more plain accusation that someone was making Polyjuice in the present - normally the films annoy me with their lack of subtlety, but for once I (obviously) couldn't complain.

Although in the same film, and even on the same topic, they telegraphed the Crouch Jr. thing far too much with that insipid 'eye twitch'. Not to mention having him appear in Harry's vision at the start. That really did bother me - in the book, you're sort of comfortable thinking that the most danger Harry will face will come from the tournament itself, and surviving it is the primary goal. In the film, they basically tell us right at the start that Voldemort is going to go after him - not to mention, it completely disregarded the ambiguity about who Voldemort's "agent" was at Hogwarts, which made the Snape/Karkaroff interactions that much more interesting.

Edit: Oh, on the topic of foreshadowing and Snape: boy, did they fuck the 'Snape's Worst Memory' scene or what? I mean, I was already annoyed that it didn't include the Pensieve and Snape finding Harry snooping, but even before DH I knew something was wrong with it. He wasn't supposed to be a loner - he at least had to pick up the wrong sort of friends, didn't he? And of course the lack of Lily rung as ominously incomplete, even if I didn't know entirely why.

Edited by facetious, Oct 25, 2008 @ 5:24 AM.

  • 0

#26

Geeni

Geeni

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 25, 2008 @ 10:13 AM

it seems like they've gone out of their way making Hermione as appealing (in every sense) as they can, when what made her charming in the books is that she's mostly kind of annoying. It's harder to pinpoint the other complaint that they've made her too much of a heroine, because it's not that book!Hermione isn't - it just seems like moments such as the Malfoy Slap are diminished because there's no contrast between her usual demeanour. And I don't think they spent enough time on the punishment Hermione devised for betraying the DA - it's supposed to illustrate that Hermione more than anyone of their generation (including Harry) grasps the scope of the impending war and understands that that means there are no longer any rules to play by (one of the pivotal moments in Hermione's character growth).


Right. The problem is the characterization of Hermione. Movies 1 and 2 had it down pat- look, behavior, mannerisms, etc. But movie 3, they stopped writing for Hermione and started writing for Emma Watson. I certainly don't remember Hermione being SUPER! and PINK! and KICKASS! in the book as well as speaking for Ron ("If you want to kill Harry you're going to have to go through us!"). Also, her eyebrows constantly look like they want to fly off her face. It's been downhill since then. Bottom line is, Watson's playing herself, not Hermione.

As for Snape's Worst Memory, I agree that it was totally wrong. Unless they're planning on having some part of it in HBP or even DH, they'll end up drastically cutting most if not all of Snape's role in the final film. Which would suck because it's a pretty pivotal role in his character, and Alan Rickman deserves something meaty.

Edited by Geeni, Oct 25, 2008 @ 10:13 AM.

  • 0

#27

zelmia

zelmia

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 25, 2008 @ 11:43 AM

boy, did they fuck the 'Snape's Worst Memory' scene or what? I mean, I was already annoyed that it didn't include the Pensieve and Snape finding Harry snooping, but even before DH I knew something was wrong with it. He wasn't supposed to be a loner - he at least had to pick up the wrong sort of friends, didn't he? And of course the lack of Lily rung as ominously incomplete, even if I didn't know entirely why.

Whether or not Snape was really a loner is of some debate. Personally, I don't think he was, really; though I have always had the impression that his friends were all older. But since I'm not sure how much we can really get into it on this Thread (since we're now leaving the realm of the films and going deep back in the original novels), I'll jsut leave it there.

But one lesson we - and especially WB - can all learn from this series is that it's always best to wait for the WHOLE story to be finished before trying to write a screenplay adaptation of it. There are so many errors as a result of trying to second guess what's to come. The Worst Memory is only one example.
  • 0

#28

BKs Nimo

BKs Nimo

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 25, 2008 @ 3:17 PM

But one lesson we - and especially WB - can all learn from this series is that it's always best to wait for the WHOLE story to be finished before trying to write a screenplay adaptation of it. There are so many errors as a result of trying to second guess what's to come. The Worst Memory is only one example.

But doesn't JKR have imput on the screenplay and see some of the dailes and whatnot? I feel that if she thought that scene was horrible done and very contradictory to the rest of the series and would adversely affect the rest of the movies, she would have said something.
  • 0

#29

zelmia

zelmia

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 25, 2008 @ 4:05 PM

She is/was consulted in the writing, but primarily out of necessity (especially prior to the release of the last 3 books). I don't think she has any actual right of approval, since WB owns the film rights to the story and can therefore do whatever the hell they want with it. However, WB know that their profits depend largely on the books' fan base; so they at least attempt to adhere to the overall story and character arcs, and that means checking back with the original author.

Anyway, when I referred to the Worst Memory as an example of "an error" in continuity, I was referring to the fact that, in the film, the all-too-brief scene ends before Lily steps in to defend Snape, even though the whole reason the scene is even called "Snape's Worst Memory" has everything to do with Lily. But since Lily was not shown in the original theatrical release of OP, by the time we get to the film of DH, that scene won't make a lot of sense unless you've read the books.

Edited by zelmia, Oct 25, 2008 @ 4:07 PM.

  • 0

#30

facetious

facetious

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Oct 26, 2008 @ 1:24 PM

There are obvious examples where JKR has stepped in - most recently, during the infamous interview outing Dumbledore she spoke about how there was going to be a subplot in OotP and she had to explain why that wouldn't work. What I suspect one of the problems is is that that was probably something that was very little difficult to cut from the film, whereas a scene like Snape's Worst Memory is important in enough senses that its tangents help to scope parts of the story even beyond the most important one. Harry wondering about James, etc. It seemed like they included it for those other reasons, while altering it based on their assumptions. It may have been a case where she was content that the scene was going to be included and didn't realise the alterations - or maybe they were made at the last minute. But there are enough examples of things in the films that make it clear that she doesn't have total control, as well. This one just turned out to be particularly significant.

I figure they'll manage to pull off some kind of retconning and/or extrapolation in HBP - it won't be difficult, really.

Edited by facetious, Oct 26, 2008 @ 1:25 PM.

  • 0