HP Creatures and Beings, Film magic at work |
 Feb 26 2008, 01:11 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Twillfit & Tatting's Chief Tatter  Posts: 2,028 Joined: 1:52am May 30, 2006 Location: Seeking the Golden Snitch    |
The magical beings in Jo Rowling's books are many and diverse. Most are adapted from mythology and then given a tweak or two to make them unique to Jo's world. Warner Brothers has their work cut out for them when they try to bring these to the big screen. They must make them both real-looking and other-worldly. They must create that which does not exist and make us believe they do.
Here is a run-down of the magical beings/animals that have been put on the big screen from Jo's books. Magical Beings *centaurs *house-elves *goblins *merpeople *Grawp *dementors Is Dobby how you imagined him?  Here in our Gallery. Magical Creatures *owls-did you know many are digital? *the basilisk *acromantulas * Buckbeak *dragons *grindylows *Nagini *thestrals *Fluffy *Crookshanks (He is a half-kneazle!) What do you think of the way the Thestrals were portrayed in OotP?  Here in our Galleries. That's quite a list! Do you think they succeeded? I for one so want a cute little Beaky to keep in my backyard!  Which creatures/beings resembled the ones you pictured? Which ones were different? Do you have a favorite? A least favorite?
-------------------- "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" Dumbledore-DH
Proud Member of the 2% Club. Harry Rules! (Club Leader, UKray) Siggy by the fab Hagiographer13  We Love You Jo!!!! |
 |
 
 
|
|
Feb 26 2008, 01:22 AM
Post
#2
|
|
In Charge of Invisible Books of Invisibility  Posts: 1,199 Joined: 3:58am March 18, 2007 Location: Teaching Ron 'tact' |
Which creatures/beings resembled the ones you pictured?
Buckbeak and Dobby are perfect...... Which ones were different? I think the troll in PS was a bit different.....It looked like a Frankenstein's monster.... Do you have a favorite? Among the magical creatures I like all of them.....But amog the beings , Dobby is my favourite... Least Favourite : Firenze is my least favourite coz he wasn't handsome at all....It was somehow resembled a monkey.... -------------------- * Severus is our king * * He can save anything * * He made sure we won *
 Thanks to theonlysong for the snape-lily avatar |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2008, 11:43 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Leaky's Official Donut Maker and Mosquito Man  Posts: 10,573 Joined: 10:51am August 25, 2005 Location: Playing kal-toh with Professor Snape |
Personally I love how the magical creatures have been portrayed in the movies, and some like Buckbeak & the thestrals are just beautiful. Dobby is just how I imagined him, although when I first saw a pic of Kreacher he wasnt how I thought he's look.
I knew many of the owls are CGI because you cant get that many owls to fly in a room in the manner in which you want them to, and they'd just get freaked out anyhows lol. The only disappointing creatures in my opinion are the troll in SS but that is (imo) poor effects rather than poor adaptation, same goes for the centaurs (  ) and Grawp. He looked great in the conceptual art that was in the Leaky Galleries before the movie was released but somehow he just looked all wrong and so obviously CGI in the movie. Maybe it's because most everything else is so perfect that anything less stands out glaringly. Also I was disappointed in the way the Dementors were changed in OoTP because despite seeing PoA a zillion times, the Dementors still creep me out but in OoTP they just look ugly. But, for the most part I just love how the movie people have adapted the magical creatures from book to screen 
--------------------   I'm 1 of the 99.99% W.L.Y.J.  When I sleep I dream, and when I dream I can rise above the walls Remember Cameron Duncan Thanks Jeff! |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2008, 03:27 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Hogsmeade's Butcher  Posts: 6,292 Joined: 1:25pm July 10, 2005 Location: Sharpening my cleaver for photo-chopping   |
QUOTE(Moose_Starr @ Feb 26 2008, 08:43 AM)  The only disappointing creatures in my opinion are the troll in SS but that is (imo) poor effects rather than poor adaptation, same goes for the centaurs ( ) and Grawp. He looked great in the conceptual art that was in the Leaky Galleries before the movie was released but somehow he just looked all wrong and so obviously CGI in the movie. Maybe it's because most everything else is so perfect that anything less stands out glaringly.Oh, I dunno--I really thought Grawp came out way better than I could have hoped (and much more affectingly than in the book.) The bit with him offering the bike handlebar and bell to Hermione, and her ringing it was sweet, and well done. Even when he picked her up--which always looks fake to me (vis-a-vis King Kong) it seemed fairly realistic.  I am a sucker for good CGI and the Potter films in general and I give a lot of lee-way to the film-makers in how they realise various "fantastic" aspects of the books, even though their vision may not match my own. (I have been known to create a whole alternative explanation for how things are different between the books and films, but that is more a tale for Scribby than the Galleries. )
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Feb 29 2008, 11:54 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Missus Lupin and Mistress Crouch Posts: 5,243 Joined: 4:57am January 28, 2005 |
CGI beings and creatures are definately a difficult thing to pull off. In my opinion, a great CGI character can be ruined by a real life actors interaction with it. For instance, Jar Jar Binks is a dreadful CGI being, but that isn't necessarily just the fault of the animation, it's because Ewan McGregor looks embarrassed to be anywhere near it!!
So you take a being like Dobby the House Elf, which is pretty close to Jar Jar, but you have him interact with Daniel as Harry, who in my opinion, does an absolute stand out job in the bedroom scene in CoS. That makes him believable. QUOTE((Cookie) Moose(ter)) The only disappointing creatures in my opinion are the troll in SS but that is (imo) poor effects rather than poor adaptation, same goes for the centaurs ( blink.gif ) and Grawp. He looked great in the conceptual art that was in the Leaky Galleries before the movie was released but somehow he just looked all wrong and so obviously CGI in the movie. Maybe it's because most everything else is so perfect that anything less stands out glaringly. I agree, Moose. The centaur in PS was really bad, as was the troll. I saw the conceptual art for Grawp at EA Studios and it looked good on paper, the problem was, it looked the same on screen!! There was no real life likeness there. The scene was cute and better than in the book, but compared to other creatures, not a stand out. The Basilisk has always been my favourite though - I thought WB did an outstanding job making it so scary and life like. Nagini will be an interesting one to pull off in DH, if, and I use that word liberally, if Steve Kloves sticks to canon and has Nagini draped around Lord Voldemort's shoulders in the opening scene and then again in the snake-bubble-of-doom! That is going to be one hell of a scene, having the snake bite into Snape and make it believable.   It's behind you!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 1 2008, 01:08 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Monster Book Stacker Posts: 368 Joined: 7:34pm September 10, 2007 Location: Wandering through wondering... |
I really love discussing the films, almost as much as the books! I agree with pretty much all that has been said so far with regard to the creatures from Rowling's world that have appeared on screen.
Firenze was certainly not portrayed as the beautiful golden creature he is described as in the books, that's a stand-out faux pas I suppose. I did like Dobby - that's pretty much how he looked in my head when I was first introduced to him in CoS, but I'd have to agree with Moose_Starr in that Kreacher wasn't quite what I'd imagined, although I may change my opinion upon subsequent viewings! I LOVED how the Thestrals were portrayed. I thought they looked eerily lovely, just the way the book described. I feel the same about Buckbeak, and the acromantulas made my skin crawl. (I share Ron's fear of spiders. Such a silly fear for a Gryffindor, but there you have it!) As for the Dementors, I actually think I preferred their look in PoA, but as I'm about to go watch OoTP for (only) the third time, perhaps I'll change my opinion on them too! 
-------------------- All our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions - Leonardo da Vinci
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 2 2008, 01:54 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Twillfit & Tatting's Chief Tatter Posts: 2,028 Joined: 1:52am May 30, 2006 Location: Seeking the Golden Snitch |
QUOTE(Hagiographer13 @ Feb 26 2008, 01:27 PM) QUOTE(Moose_Starr @ Feb 26 2008, 08:43 AM) The only disappointing creatures in my opinion are the troll in SS but that is (imo) poor effects rather than poor adaptation, same goes for the centaurs ( ) and Grawp. He looked great in the conceptual art that was in the Leaky Galleries before the movie was released but somehow he just looked all wrong and so obviously CGI in the movie. Maybe it's because most everything else is so perfect that anything less stands out glaringly.Oh, I dunno--I really thought Grawp came out way better than I could have hoped (and much more affectingly than in the book.) The bit with him offering the bike handlebar and bell to Hermione, and her ringing it was sweet, and well done. Even when he picked her up--which always looks fake to me (vis-a-vis King Kong) it seemed fairly realistic. I am a sucker for good CGI and the Potter films in general and I give a lot of lee-way to the film-makers in how they realise various "fantastic" aspects of the books, even though their vision may not match my own. (I have been known to create a whole alternative explanation for how things are different between the books and films, but that is more a tale for Scribby than the Galleries. )I have to agree with you on Grawp Hagiographer. I was impressed with the myriad emotions/facial expressions they were able to convey with Grawp. That is one of the reasons he was so affecting to me watching him. Here in our galleries. I too really loved how the thestrals were portrayed in OotP. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around them when reading the book so I didn't really have a clear image in my head, and these filled the void quite well!  I thought it was fantastic that they gave their wings a transparent quality, so you could see light through them. That really made them look real to me. I like both Dementor styles actually, it just depends on my mood. The POA ones are fabulous and creepy, but the OotP ones are very fascinating. I liked how the OotP ones could show expression on their faces, where the POA ones could not. When the one attacking Dudley looks up to see Prongs charging it down it registers shock on its face, which I thought was just cool! Ok so here's a question for you: Which dragon do you think was best? Norbert?  or The Horntail?   -------------------- "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" Dumbledore-DH
Proud Member of the 2% Club. Harry Rules! (Club Leader, UKray) Siggy by the fab Hagiographer13 We Love You Jo!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Mar 2 2008, 08:20 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Knight Bus Driver in Training Posts: 558 Joined: 2:54pm June 20, 2007 Location: snogging ron ron in the chamber of secrets |
QUOTE(vandy @ Feb 26 2008, 01:22 AM) Which creatures/beings resembled the ones you pictured? Buckbeak and Dobby are perfect...... Which ones were different? I think the troll in PS was a bit different.....It looked like a Frankenstein's monster.... Do you have a favorite? Among the magical creatures I like all of them.....But amog the beings , Dobby is my favourite... Least Favourite : Firenze is my least favourite coz he wasn't handsome at all....It was somehow resembled a monkey.... i completely agree with u the troll was totally off i just watched SS and i was like omg firenze isnt handsome at all! dobby was perfect! i loved the thestrals too! ohmy they were amazing! -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Mar 2 2008, 08:51 AM
Post
#9
|
|
Neville's Personal Dietitian Posts: 659 Joined: 2:20pm September 22, 2007 Location: Hiding in Ron Weasley's wardrobe, waiting to jump out at him and trying not to laugh too loudly =P |
In general I like the way the creatures are portrayed in the films, but there are a few instances where I just think wtf.
Like other people on this thread, I do not like the way that the troll looks. It just doesn't seem how it's supposed to be in the book. Also I have a real problem with the Hungarian Horntail - I always thought it was supposed to be black, but I could be wrong. I don't think it looks much like a dragon though - it doesn't have a long snout and it doesn't really look fierce enough IMO. Norbert was great, HH was not. As for Grawp.....well. He looks nothing like I thought he would. But this could well be my 'wrong' interpretation of him. But my worst creature in the film is the centaurs in OotP - why oh why? They are all really dark in the movie, but in the books they are all different colours, including palomino. But they do get it right the rest of the time - thestrals were awesome, so was Dobby. Buckbeak was pretty good too. I would have liked to see some flobberworms though....that would have been so cool! --------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 2 2008, 10:06 AM
Post
#10
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer Posts: 138 Joined: 8:19pm March 1, 2008 Location: The Great Hall |
My favorite was Buckbeak. I just thought he was gorgeous!!!
Least favorites would be the centaurs ( Firenze in particular) & the Horntail. I like dragons. I think they are much prettier than that. lol. I agree w/ MuggleQueen. It doesn't look that much like a dragon! Grawp was good. He sounded nasty looking in the book. --------------------  |
|
|
|
