|
Post by Author By Night on Feb 15, 2009 11:24:12 GMT -5
I think that in terms of canon accuracy, I liked the first two the best, so that's a tie. On the other hand, Order of the Phoenix was the one I felt was written for fans, not for more money in WB's pockets. I felt like it was both an adaptation and an homage. Although I felt that way about the first movie as well.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by siriusgirl on Feb 15, 2009 17:39:12 GMT -5
That sounds about right. The first two movies were bang on accuracy, even got criticzed by critics for being "too accurate" . The second one was the best. The third one so far has been the weakest, because they changed so much even some really big details. They left out the whole Marauders backstory, and how they knew Scabbers was a rat, and they made Three Broomsticks bar way too North American, by not letting kids in. In Europe and Britain included, they're not so tight about alcohol and we know tahts' a popular kids hangout. The fourth one was better, but it really lacked something with the subplots, and some could have been kept, like Skeeter being an animagus. It was only the tasks so it just seemed to be rushed and flat and really catered a bit too much to hose who hadn't read the boooks. But the new casting was good. And I was annoyed they eliminated Dumbledore's speech at the end and also Winky and SPEW. The fifth one was way better! The best really since COS! It was much more accurate in canon, and the casting was bang on. Imelda Staunton was BRILLIANT as umbridge, and Helena Boheme Carter was a PERFECT Bellatrix, and Tonks was good too.
|
|
|
Post by Author By Night on Feb 15, 2009 18:14:45 GMT -5
That sounds about right. The first two movies were bang on accuracy, even got criticzed by critics for being "too accurate" . Do you remember who said they were too accurate? I want to read that review. I've never heard of anyone saying that before. She really was! She was even how I pictured Bellatrix, eerily enough. (I mean, I guess that's not saying too much, since we are given a fairly good description of her, but still.)
|
|
|
Post by doriscrockford on Feb 15, 2009 19:16:26 GMT -5
I prefer the third to the first two for cinematic reasons: the castle LOOKS 1,000 years old as opposed to the Disney version of the first 2. I also like that it's the first time we get to see the "real Fred and George". The 4th and 5th had their good points, but too much of the plot was missing for me. And yes, the absence of the Mauraders in 3 was ridiculous, but the visuals made up for it for me. Although, having said that, I'm now remembering how the bald werewolf really annoyed me ... So ignore me.
|
|
|
Post by siriusgirl on Feb 15, 2009 21:11:04 GMT -5
Do you remember who said they were too accurate? I want to read that review. I've never heard of anyone saying that before.
No, but I could probably find it.
Interesting how probably the best two were also Richard Harris as Dumbledore. I don't mean to insult Michael Gambon, but I find Gambon too aggressive as Dumbledore at times.
The visuals in POA were great, but I just found too much inaccuracy in the movie itself. GOF had like 50% chopped out only the quidditch cup which even that had some chopped out, and the tasks. And they chopped out Sirius role.
Bald werewolf? Like WTF? I know!
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Feb 16, 2009 4:28:24 GMT -5
I never heard too accurate but I did hear people complain that they adhered too much to the book as to where they didn't flow well on screen. I can see that, CoS seems to drag at parts.
Anyway, I voted for OOTP. It's my favorite book and my favorite movie. It was short and there are things that make me want to scream but I love the DA and - for the most part - the DoM battle. Also Evanna Lynch did a brilliant job as Luna Lovegood.
I'm one of those heretics who prefers Gambon to Harris. Not that Harris didn't do a great job and he played Dumbledore exactly as he was written in those books but when I think of someone who I could believe flirting with world domination (for the greater good, of course!) and falling in love with a Dark Lord, I think of Gambon's Dumbledore. I used to think his acting in GoF was just poor direction (Tennant and Watson were giving really hammy, muggy performances too) it could be they're writing Dumbledore as such as a short-hand to set-up for the eventual revelation. It's not quite canon but Dumbledore gets about 10 minutes in each film and they need to make it believable that this man could have Machiavellian plans involving Harry saving the world. That just won't come across if Dumbledore is the kindly stock wizard he was in the first two films.
|
|
|
Post by Author By Night on Feb 16, 2009 7:21:26 GMT -5
I think you've got an excellent point there - the visuals in the film are actually excellent. It's just that it moves so fast. And takes out the Marauders - which I can understand to a point, but they could've at least explained the Secret Keeper thing. Instead, Remus and Sirius are shouting and all of a sudden Harry loves Sirius - it makes sense to us, since we've read the books, but not to the viewers who haven't read them.
Plus, they treated Ron horribly. Poor Ron - did they need to turn him into a babbling idiot?
Very good point.
And you know, I didn't see Dumbledore as overly aggressive in the fourth movie; I took his shaking Harry's shoulders not as anger, but as urgency. What happened wasn't supposed to have, and Dumbledore needed to know if Harry had put his name in - because otherwise, something was very, very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by doctoraicha on Feb 16, 2009 12:10:12 GMT -5
The movies are just unsatisfactory. I don't hate them, but I can't love them either. The scripts are awful, just awful.
|
|
|
Post by pigwithhair on Feb 19, 2009 11:04:32 GMT -5
I voted for the fifth film. I thought it was the most accurate in terms of sticking to the characters as they are in the books, and I thought it did the best job of conveying much of the story as it was in the book. I liked the fifth book the least, by far, so I was very impressed when I actually preferred the fifth film.
I do like the first two films very much. I agree they did an excellent job of establishing the wizarding world cinematically, and I also agree they were both a bit "Disney."
The third film was beautiful visually, but I can't stand what was done to the characters and the storyline. They stuck in this long ride on Buckbeak and yet it's never explained why Lupin knows about the Marauder's Map while Snape doesn't, never mind what they did to Ron in moving his best lines of the book to Hermione and the creation of SuperTomBoyHermione, which bothers me.
The fourth film I thought well done when I first saw it, though it doesn't hold up to time. That said, it's easy for me to say with hindsight that there was too much emphasis on the Tri-Wizard tasks since their importance - or lack thereof - wasn't then known. The whole Tri-Wizard thing seems pointless to me now.
I'm very curious to see how they handled the sixth book. I'm very glad David Yates stayed on, but concerned that Kloves is back. I much preferred the script of the fifth film which had more dialogue straight from the book.
|
|
|
Post by siriusgirl on Feb 19, 2009 14:22:00 GMT -5
Not to mention though not a major theme, in POA NO QUIDDITCH!! They totally took out the firebolt, and Cedric beating Harry, and skipped Harry's crush on Cho. The Buckbeak ride was mutated, it's established that Harry is only comfortable on a broom.
The triwizard tournament lead up to Cedric's deaths and the other books, but the other subplots were equally important. Crouch and his son, Rita Skeeter being an animagus,. All that was just scrapped. And where was the big fallout at the end between Dumbledore and the Ministry? They could have and should have kept THAT! And wdhat abaout Spew? since we all know how that plays a role in the final book
The fifth was definitely a huge improvement, good thing they kept Kreacher in. Regulus though wasn't mentioned, so what will they do with RAB
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Feb 19, 2009 14:46:57 GMT -5
It's odd because the movies are done by different people each new writer/director has to deal with the previous writers have left out or written in along with their own vision of how the book they are working on should be developed into a movie. This has to be frustrating.
What if the writer of the seventh book really wants to keep Dobby's death as an important plot and character moment but Dobby has never been established in any previous movie. The scene of the escape from Malfoy manor is cinematic and exciting and would be good on the screen, but it requires Dobby. His relationship to Harry and the Malfoys adds poignancy to the scene. Now the writer has to figure out how to write that in so it works with the previous films.
|
|
|
Post by siriusgirl on Feb 20, 2009 22:16:41 GMT -5
ooh, very good point! It must be hard for sure. Which is why they didn't have Skeeter's article in OOTP, since her animagus story was scrapped in GOF, for exmaple.
I think the danger also can be catering too much to non book readers, and that was to me, the problem with GOF. Cedric talking about a portkey, cutting out the subplots etc. I think there needs to be a balance, the first to and OOTP had a pretty good balacne.
|
|
|
Post by mo on Feb 21, 2009 16:20:34 GMT -5
I am a total book girl, the movies are very, very secondary to me. While I think they are better than a lot of movies, they are just so outside of my Canon-Nazi Hp Devotion.
SO, for that reason, I guess I'll say the first was my favorite. Being the shortest and simplest story of the series, it was the easiest to translate to film without major rejiggering, and I do admit that it was MORE true to the source material than I had hoped.
The later books are harder to adapt well just due to sheer volume of material, so I'll give a nod to OOTP for making a better go of it. I thought GOF was just terrible, with major holes in the story and bizarre characterizations that made no sense. That, and the boys had really, REALLY ugly hair. Like, '80's era Dennis Miller bad. And that's just not OK.
|
|
|
Post by magikcat on Feb 21, 2009 16:32:00 GMT -5
I think they all have their good points and bad points. But I have to agree that the OotP movie was the best -- at least in my opinion -- because like it's been said before, it's was a good adaption. They put the important stuff in, the director did a fabulous job bring out he characters in the actors (which was partly because of a good script as well), and it didn't drag on for ages (let's admit it, most of book 5 is Harry's emotional turmoil).
I'm really excited to see the sixth movie, because I think the director could bring out Draco's character more than it has in the past.
|
|
|
Post by siriusgirl on Feb 21, 2009 17:05:12 GMT -5
And emotional turmoil doesn't show well on screen but they did well in the movie, they could have shown Harry more angry at the end.
I'm looking forward to the sixth one, let's hope it keeps up to the book because HBP was awesome!
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Feb 22, 2009 15:18:18 GMT -5
Depends what you mean by 'best'. Film critics who have not read the books think that Prisoner of Azkaban is undoubtedly the best HP movie because it has a clear storyline, moves fast and they love Cuaron's direction and new take on the teenagers and Hogwarts itself. I agree... up to a point. I love that Hogwarts suddenly looks like a 'proper' castle (Brit talking here), weathered and part of the landscape, instead of shining and pretty like a Disney castle. I love that magic is integrated into the film instead of being "and here's somone doing MAGIC". Michael Gambon is really good as Dumbledore in this film (his 'innocent' act at the end of the film is priceless). I really like two thirds of the film... up until the Shrieking Shack scene. Now, this scene is one of my favourites in the whole series, I still remember my first reading and the number of revelations: bam! Remus is a werewolf; bam! Scabbers is actually Peter Pettigrew; bam! Peter was the spy, Sirius a wronged prisoner; bam! Sirius is Harry's godfather; bam! Snape was almost killed by Lupin and James saved his life; bam! Snape is knocked out by the Trio and they're all off to tell Dumbledore. So I had high expectations of the film, and d*mn, it let me down. There's almost no backstory. The Marauder plot is cut completely, so we have no idea WHY Sirius and Peter can transform into a dog and a rat respectively, just that they can; we have no idea why Snape despises Sirius and Remus so much. THEN we have the ridiculous scene of Sirius pleading with Remus to "fight" the wolf and telling him about his "true heart", which makes Sirius look stupid. This leads onto the mindboggling scene of Snape throwing himself in front of the Trio and then we enter the Super!Hermione portion of the film, which I prefer not to remember. Ron's character is crucified in this film as the blubbering, bumbling comic relief, while Hermione is exalted to the point of deification, with even Sirius telling her "You really ARE the cleverest witch of your age". There's no explanation of why Harry's Patronus is a stag and the significance of this, and they only just manage to shove the Firebolt in at the end of the film. Personally, I feel that Order of the Phoenix is the best film so far, and I love the book. But I always knew it was going to be a difficult book to film and I was happy that, unlike Goblet of Fire, it was a coherent story. They captured the feel of the book, the characters were once again recognisable, and Evanna Lynch was amazing as Luna Lovegood. I just wish they could have made more of Ginny and Neville.
|
|
|
Post by siriusgirl on Feb 22, 2009 23:23:01 GMT -5
Starsea- ITA with you about everything. POA may have been the best from a critics point of view, but from a readers POV it doesn't rate to some. I hated that they chopped the shrieking, that scene was VITAL!! And Ron the Idiot versus Saint Hermione was annoying too.
OOTP was great, Evanna Lynch really hit it out of the park as Luna, everything was so spot on. Umbridge was repulsively perfect, and Bellatrix every bit as scary.
|
|
|
Post by starsea on Feb 23, 2009 15:57:42 GMT -5
OOTP was great, Evanna Lynch really hit it out of the park as Luna, everything was so spot on. Umbridge was repulsively perfect, and Bellatrix every bit as scary. Yes! I forgot to mention Imelda Staunton as a pitch-perfect, Umbridge and Helena Bonham Carter, vying for Best Death Eater with Jason Isaacs.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Feb 23, 2009 18:19:14 GMT -5
Depends what you mean by 'best'. Film critics who have not read the books think that Prisoner of Azkaban is undoubtedly the best HP movie because it has a clear storyline, moves fast and they love Cuaron's direction and new take on the teenagers and Hogwarts itself. I agree... up to a point. Starsea I pretty much agree completely with your post! So much depends on what your expectations are for the best adaptation. Some people want complete "accuracy"--basically to see everything exactly they imagined it, other people want an interesting new take on the same story. Unfortunately, the first bunch are usually disappointed. Film narrative and written narrative are very different, so it's nearly impossible to keep absolute fidelity to the written canon and end up with a good film. There really is a lot to like about Prisoner of Azkaban. It's got great visuals and much better pacing than the first two films, but it does come at the expense of the Marauder back story, which is what made me love the book so much. Order of the Phoenix probably goes the farthest from strict translation from book to film, but it's my favorite of the five so far. It really captures that darker feel that's so unsettling about the book, yet manages to fit the essentials of the plot into a shorter run time, and it's got really strong acting. The child actors have developed a lot over the years, and Imelda Staunton is so repulsively perfect as Umbridge. Hopefully Half Blood Prince will meet the bar set by OotP.
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Feb 23, 2009 19:18:16 GMT -5
I agree. Honestly, if it weren't for the horrid Shrieking Shack scene (where movie!Ron cries and begs Harry to save, whines about a cut on his leg rather than having a broken leg and then Hermione steals his line) it would probably be my favorite of the five movies.
|
|