| 1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) |
|
Things You Didn't Like About the Films, Part 2 |
|
|
|
 Feb 21 2008, 03:18 PM
|
Hiding in the Iron Maiden at Borgin and Burkes
Posts: 315
Joined: 8:01am August 4, 2007
Location: Prince Edward Island, Canada
|
There are only two things that bothered me about the films.
The first is that the longer the books became the more was left out of the films.
Secondly, Hermione gets some of Ron's lines in the films. It seems that Ron isn't given his dues in the films compared to the books. This is just my opinion, of course.
Other than those two observations by me I thought they did a great job of adapting the books to film.
Of course I have to mention that I miss the old Dumbledore. The new Dumbledore in the movies- not anything like the Dumbledore in the books. That may be the directors fault more than anything. That is my assumption of course.
So I guess That it's three things I have a problem with not two. 
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2008, 07:01 PM
|
Just Through the Brick Wall
Posts: 8
Joined: 4:24pm February 20, 2008
|
Things I didn't like about the movies...
The first film was pretty good, just tiny flaws.
The second movie was pretty good that too, but I think they could have used the chapter with Valentine's day.
The third movie was darker than the book, it was good sometimes, but it was way too dark some places, and it was a pity that the old Dumbledore died.
The fourth movie was good, I think they should've used Dobbey in that movie, though.
The fifth movie was the best so far, but the scene with Harry's parents in the pensieve should have been longer, Sirius death happend too fast and they made Harry seem mentally ill.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2008, 07:39 PM
|
Professional Diagon Alley Window Shopper
Posts: 75
Joined: 2:41pm September 1, 2007
|
Not to be OCD with my posts, but I hated the lack of the feel and atmosphere of the Magical World in the movies. GoF and OotP are just plain missing something intrinsically HP, mostly the whimsical and eccentric. I know they are two movies made after the more serious and dark of the book series, but both books still had equal part quirky and magic, to dark and heavy. So why not include some quirky and magic in the movies? GoF put way too much focus on action instead of character, story and magical feel. OotP just didn't feel like it was at Hogwarts, it felt like some muggle dorm, still it had merit.
The first two movies (SS and CoS) are a little too cheesy aiming for the kiddy market, they lost some depth. My problem with CoS is all the "Home Alone" screaming, and way too long car scenes. The part where Harry almost falls out of the car is obnoxious. The snake fight is too long and the Dobby and Dursley thing is just vaudeville boring. The art of making movies, like dance, art or literature is its own separate medium of expression. Let's face it nothing tops the books, but the movies should use their medium to produce at the very least the feel and atmosphere of the Harry Potter books, which I feel was better done in SS than in GoF, or even OotP at times. I just can't get over the silly kiddie moments that are so slapstick and overdone. Kids that read Harry Potter don't even seem to be into that kind of entertainment.
The actors get a little cocky after GoF. Harry in his baggy clothes and his sweet ways is just more Harry. GoF put way too much focus on action instead of character, story and magical feel. I felt GoF was very Hollywood, which always shocks me in a Harry Potter movie. Hollywood has a very muggle feel in my opinion and in my own stupidity I assume HP fans are all of a more magical nature. One of the things that really bug me about this movie is how flat everyone seems in it. Little touches like the boys not wanting to dance, how cliché is that? Or Mr. Angry Dumbledore…or how about the lack of magic or humor? These are wizards not Dursleys! Yikes, on top of that Hogwarts felt like a public school not a school of witchcraft and wizardry. The dress clothes in the Yule Ball seem all wrong. I see dress robes in my mind, more a cross between old and new, more eccentric, elegant and wizard like. It looked like a Prom in the Midwest. I also did not like Harry being rude to Neville. It just did not feel like the book. It would seem GoF was after the teen market as much as the first two were after the kiddie market. How about not aiming for a market and just making a movie as good as the books, well as close as possible.
My problem with PoA was it was too short.
If I was going to give advice to Warner Bros. it would be:
"We must all face the choice, between what is right and what is easy."
-Dumbledore
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 22 2008, 09:14 PM
|
Ollivander's Phoenix Feather Plucker
Posts: 4,221
Joined: 2:07pm April 9, 2006
Location: Re-reading Hogwarts, A History...
|
QUOTE(FleurDeLaPointe @ Feb 22 2008, 07:39 PM)  If I was going to give advice to Warner Bros. it would be:
"We must all face the choice, between what is right and what is easy."
-Dumbledore
Cute. Very cute. 
I cut it off, but I agree about the lack of atmosphere. When you watched the movies, you don't truly feel like you are in them...at least not all the time. I think that's what makes a great movie, when you can get lost in it's story; like we do in our reading I guess.
--------------------
"Seen anything yet?" Harry asked them after a quarter of an hour's quiet crystal gazing.
"Yeah, there's a burn on this table," Ron said, pointing. ~~~Avatar and banner by theonlysong~~~ |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 1 2008, 04:55 PM
|
Monster Book Stacker
Posts: 356
Joined: 12:00am March 9, 2007
|
There are a few things I didn't like about the films.
First, the portrayal of various spells. Why use so many made-up spells (which have been in every film so far) when they have no lack of canon spells to choose from? Why do so many spells, both made-up and canon, do the same things: blast someone off his/her feet or blow something up? It gets redundant and nonsensical after a while.
Second, the unnecessary tampering of characters' lines and personalities. Characters say certain things and act in certain ways for a reason, which has everything to do with their roles in the overall story. Unless they're cutting a particular character and therefore must give that character's lines to another, I don't understand the logic of having A say B's lines when it won't reduce the film's length, won't save money, and won't detract from the plot in any way for B to say his/her own lines -- and, on the contrary, will kill much needed character development for B to lose those lines. What "good" is accomplished through such changes?
Third, the lack of consistency throughout the films. I can live with the changes in wardrobe and set design (even if I don't always think those changes are improvements). I can live with the changes in mood and atmosphere IF it makes sense in the context of the film's plot. What I don't understand and find irritating are the frequent, abrupt, totally unexplained changes in character attitude and behavior. Most of the time this type of thing doesn't advance the plot in any discernible way, has the potential to confuse film-only fans, and is probably more due to the various directors' whims than due to actual necessity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 2 2008, 10:35 AM
|
Weasleys' Wizarding Wheezes' best customer
Posts: 1,042
Joined: 8:39pm November 3, 2006
Location: Spying for the Order of the Phoenix
|
QUOTE(morgiana @ Mar 1 2008, 04:55 PM) There are a few things I didn't like about the films.
First, the portrayal of various spells. Why use so many made-up spells (which have been in every film so far) when they have no lack of canon spells to choose from? Why do so many spells, both made-up and canon, do the same things: blast someone off his/her feet or blow something up? It gets redundant and nonsensical after a while.
I quite agree here. I have no explanation as to why the screenwriters might do this, except that it's stupid. Expelliarmus is not the "every spell," thank you very much.
QUOTE Second, the unnecessary tampering of characters' lines and personalities. Characters say certain things and act in certain ways for a reason, which has everything to do with their roles in the overall story. Unless they're cutting a particular character and therefore must give that character's lines to another, I don't understand the logic of having A say B's lines when it won't reduce the film's length, won't save money, and won't detract from the plot in any way for B to say his/her own lines -- and, on the contrary, will kill much needed character development for B to lose those lines. What "good" is accomplished through such changes?
To be honest, I can't really remember any occasion where a character got another's lines (save the worn out example of Hermione saying Ron's in Shrieking Shack, which I still contest was because Ron was injured and the screenwriters didn't want to be not credible), but if you have some, do post them. I'd love to see them.
QUOTE Third, the lack of consistency throughout the films. I can live with the changes in wardrobe and set design (even if I don't always think those changes are improvements). I can live with the changes in mood and atmosphere IF it makes sense in the context of the film's plot. What I don't understand and find irritating are the frequent, abrupt, totally unexplained changes in character attitude and behavior. Most of the time this type of thing doesn't advance the plot in any discernible way, has the potential to confuse film-only fans, and is probably more due to the various directors' whims than due to actual necessity.
You're right here, as well. Lack of consistency can and probably will confuse non-book fans, but this almost entirely due to the fact that since COS, the HP movies have had a new director who wants to imprint a bit of his style on the film.
QUOTE I don't like how Dumbledore is portrayed by Michael Gambon, he's too angry. Dumbledore is nothing like that. GoF was the worst movie by far to me. I just didn't like it. PoA and OotP are best so far.
I agree that DD's portrayal in GOF is OOC, but it is more Mike Newell's (the director) fault than Gambon's. Look at Gambon's portrayal in OOTP. Much different than GOF.
This post has been edited by mad_nose_moody90: Mar 2 2008, 10:38 AM
--------------------
We'll miss you Sirius...   "Can I have a look at Uranus too, Lavender?"-Ron Weasley |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 2 2008, 01:24 PM
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer
Posts: 138
Joined: 8:19pm March 1, 2008
Location: The Great Hall
|
argh, just closed my Firefox tab on a long winded post. Ah well...
I love the movies. I love the books. The books are my one true-I'm devoted to forever love. The movies, well, I see us as long term, but not soul mates ;)
Anyhoo... I view the books and movies as different entities. The movies are like the books in Cliff Notes.
I do love them, I love seeing "my people" and "my places" come to life on screen.
However, there are of course things that annoy.
I think the characters for the most part are pretty true to the books. Ron is a little whinier in the movies, and Ginny not as strong. The twins blend into the background too much. They are total attention seekers. GOF was great for the twins. OOTP ok too, but GOF was how I see the twins. GOF Dumbledore scarred me. I've not recovered yet. I don't even know what Newell was thinking when DD went after Harry in the throphy room.
Quotes- I catch them once in a while. I know that in CoS Mr Weasley repaired Harry's glasses, not Hermione. In the same movie she said DD's line: Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself. I'll have to think on this, but there are more than a few instances of that happening.
The spells, I still dont get. Why take a perfectly good spell of Jo's and make up another spell for the movie?? That's just odd.
Oh well, I still love my movies. I just love my books more ;)
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 2 2008, 06:39 PM
|
Weasleys' Wizarding Wheezes' best customer
Posts: 1,042
Joined: 8:39pm November 3, 2006
Location: Spying for the Order of the Phoenix
|
Love your name, 'sup figgy...  And  to the Lounge! Enjoy your stay, and post often!
QUOTE Quotes- I catch them once in a while. I know that in CoS Mr Weasley repaired Harry's glasses, not Hermione. In the same movie she said DD's line: Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself. I'll have to think on this, but there are more than a few instances of that happening.
Oh, that's right....I'd forgotten about that. Lol, I wonder if the "Super Hermione" camp knows that it all began in COS........
--------------------
We'll miss you Sirius... "Can I have a look at Uranus too, Lavender?"-Ron Weasley |
|
|
|
  Similar Topics
 Similar Topics
|
Sorting is now open for our Prisoner of Azkaban reading groups! Click here to sort!
Shopping at The Cauldron Shop supports this forum!
|
