re: Is Harry Potter the greatest achievement in cinematic history?

quote:

---

I have had two main beefs with this series (huge fan of the books and have read them quite a few times through). I hate the current Dumbledore. I liked Richard Harris ok, but he was just......too old. AD is old in the books, but they make it clear that he always has this sense of youth and energy about him. The current AD has that, but is a tool. He's yelling at the students in OOTP (would never do that), and when they are discussing the horcruxes near the end of HBP, he acts like he doesn't have a clue what to do next. "They can be anything and anywhere!" NO!!! The whole point of the memories was to educate Harry enough about Voldemort to tell him what he would use and where he would hide them. And the actor even admitted that he never touched the books.

---

It seems your beef should be more with the director than the actor. If Richard Harris were still Dumbledore, he would have likely done the same thing.

Well whoever gets the blame, it's a crap idea

think of how much bank the final HP will be.

3D tickets people...

Lord of the Rings finds your post amusing.

It's up there.

Okay, I was curious about the "Star Wars vs. HP" argument, so I decided to check out the numbers and do a little math. I used the worldwide box office grosses and an inflation calculator, and here are the results (from a Word document):



Star Wars is extraordinarily top-heavy, whereas HP has been much more consistent throughout. Also, I expect the last HP movie to eclipse all of the others, so those numbers will go up a little bit IMO. Also, since someone made a LotR reference, I threw that series into the argument as well. All in all, all three are retardedly successful, and have more than impressive grosses per movie, which IMO is the most impressive for HP since it will be 8 movies total (and again, SW has a nice per movie average - the highest of the three series - but that's mainly due to the gross of the first movie).

Anyway, hope this settles the debate. It's basically close for all three, and no one is "not even close" to the other (realizing that SW is mainly due to the first movie's success).

I would have guessed LOTR to be the highest average of the three series'.

But again, why is this debate solely focusing on the money made, like that is really what determines whether something is a great cinematic achievement?

Not directed at you coco, just the thread in general.

I would say that this is probably the most well cast series of all time. Its not like Lord of the Rings where the characters don't age. When they were casting the film, they only had knowledge on what the third book would encompass. Nothing beyond that was known, so its really nothing short of a miracle on how the characters turned out at the end that they were still able to be used authentically nearly 10 years later. Rowling has a lot to do with how well the casting turned out by her demands on only British actors being cast. Sure there are a few characters I don't imagine them when I'm reading (don't imagine Umbridge and Slughorn the same when I'm reading), but they were all skilled actors and did their jobs well.

But is it the greatest achievement in cinematic history: No, certainly not. The quality of the story in each film has varied far to greatly.

quote:

---

And I started a thread using that post anyway, so head there for this discussion por favor.

---

My post wasn't really directed at your analysis, but the entire thread, which has focused primarily on money. Like I said, I don't really care about a film's box office. Why should I? Am I getting a cut?

your analysis was pretty spot on, if I felt that was cinematic acheivment, as many posters seem to think.

quote:

---

TigerinATL

---

Have you read the books at all? Didn't see if you had posted that earlier or not. Curious because I wonder what I would think of the movies if I wasn't in love with the books like I am. Fresh perspective.