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

quote:

---

I liked the first 4 movies much better because they were completely encapsulated.

---

I didn't like the Goblet of Fire because it felt like a marathon and literally took 0 time to breath. Next to the Deathly Hallows, its the novel that certainly contains the most plot, but its one of the shorter films. It shouldn't have been split into two films since there is no logical place to split the novel, but it should have been as long as Return of the King (nearly 3.5 hours). The best part of GoF was the mystery on who was behind Harry's name being put in the Goblet of Fire. There were literally 6 candidates who could be behind it (personally I was going with Bagman before the final reveal), but the film takes the luxury of literally giving it away in the very first scene, and then Mad Eye takes far too much of an interest in Harry for it to be coincidence in the film. There was no mystery, its just the other characters were too dumb to see it. That and it was solely about skipping from one task to the next as quickly as possible. I did really like the encounter in the graveyard though (although there should have been far more Death Eaters present).

Clearly the answer to this is Lost....


Oh wait sorry, my mistake.

But anyways, Baloo is right, if we are strictly talking money made, then maybe (although Coco's numbers seem to disprove that). If we are talking quality? No. Not even close. Lord of the Rings had a much more consistent and rich world even.

quote:

---

eight movies. all the same actors

---

So you cast a bunch of kids and sign them on to long term deals? And you get patriotic by only casting British actors? And that is an achievement? And all of the actors now command huge salaries, which you can pay, so that equals greatest franchise ever?

quote:

---

All of them have been as faithful to the novels as any other adaption.

---

Isn't this a huge contention of the fans? That the movies haven't done enough to be like the books??

quote:

---

And all of them have been good (depending on your view of Harry Potter after all).

---

Not really. 1-2 were bland, but ok. 3 was great, 4 and 5 were close to bad. 6 was dull and obviously left stuff out. DH Pt. 1 was an incomplete film.

quote:

---

Eight movies in ten years.

---

$ will do that. And rabid fans.

quote:

---

An entire adaption of a series of books.

---

$

quote:

---

I don't know of anything else that can compare.

---

Well in terms of money and amount of movies, maybe not (but then look at James Bond and Star Trek).

When Harry Potter lasts for 20+ years, get back to me.

quote:

---

That's where I stand on this, btw. I have thoroughly enjoyed every single HP movie, and that is coming from someone who has never read the books, and won't ever either, as I have zero interest in doing so. I just think the HP movies are exceptionally entertaining. And that's tough to do when there are this many of them.

---

To be honest reading the novels ruins the films in many ways. HBP isn't a bad film by any means, but its a terrible adaptation, which makes me hate the film. The novels are certainly superior.

quote:

---

So you cast a bunch of kids and sign them on to long term deals? And you get patriotic by only casting British actors? And that is an achievement? And all of the actors now command huge salaries, which you can pay, so that equals greatest franchise ever?

---

I'd say it was an achievement to cast the kids so well. Alot of stuff could have happened in 10 years. Its not like Lord of the Rings where you have almost complete control over the adults and age doesn't really matter.

quote:

---

I'd say it was an achievement to cast the kids so well.

---

Yes, but many franchises are casted exceptionally well. They don't get points for lucking out on the draw either.

But they casted 3 unknown kids, 2 of which weren't even actors, simply because how they looked. They had nothing else going for them in terms of great success, would they really not have signed on to a huge deal? None of them are even good actors. They are merely serviceable, and can look the part.

quote:

---

Kids aging well is luck, not acheivment. And I will say that Herminoe Grnager was the strongest actor of the three when the series started, but she never really developed as an actress and her work in the later movies was cringe inducing. They did luck out with Ratcliffe's committment to improving his craft. He went from good child actor to good adult actor, not the easiest of transitions in the public eye.

Rickman and Bonham-Carter are two of the best things about the films. It'd be hard for them not to be, as they are both built for those roles.

---

And this.

quote:

---

Rickman and Bonham-Carter are two of the best things about the films. It'd be hard for them not to be, as they are both built for those roles.

---

Again, I love Rickman, but he is too subdued for this role. He never really lashes out like Snape in the books. When I read them, I do see Rickman. He has the look down. But they made him more cuddly in the movies. Not nearly as scared of him.

Bohnam-Carter............spot on.

quote:

---

Again, I love Rickman, but he is too subdued for this role. He never really lashes out like Snape in the books. When I read them, I do see Rickman. He has the look down. But they made him more cuddly in the movies. Not nearly as scared of him.

---

Well Snape really only lashes out at Harry like 4 times in the novels. He's usually just extremely condescending to him, which Rickman does well. Wish they would have had him lose control at the end of HBP, which I think would have been highly effective.

Every time Snape sees Harry in the novels, he is just oozing with hate and distaste. In the movies, he's just bored with everyone, it seems.

quote:

---

Ginny isn't nearly the spunky girl as she is in the books.

---

she is probably the worst actor in the series.
absolutely terrible, she is so boring and dull in the movies.