Is anyone else disappointed with the Harry Potter movies?

[Matilda]

I doubt if any film adapted from a book has ever been as good as the original, but I find the
HP movies very two-dimensional.

I'm sure the kids are happy, but I don't think I'd bother seeing any more after Azkaban. It's not
just the characters who are left out, but I think the special effects take over. And perhaps -
just perhaps - the movies reveal the lack of depth to the characters. I really do love the books,
and GOF and OOTP in particular I couldn't put down. But I don't get the same sense of fascination
from the films, nor do I feel satisfied at the end. I don't blame the actors, the directors or
the cameraman; I think it's the writing that's at fault. It's just skimming the surface of the
stories, and I think the movies, more than the books, are for children.

Am I alone in this?

[XemaSab]

1. I think it was a big mistake to start making the movies

before the series was finished. The first movies seem so INNOCENT, and now I watch them and it's like a whole different story, almost.

I agree that the movies are definitely aimed at children, and there's a lot of nuance missing from the films that's present in spades in the books. Even the less central plots weave in and out of the "main" story line in a way that's pretty important to the development of the characters. I'd even go so far as to argue that the only book with a strong central plot is GOF, and the rest of the books, the satisfaction is less in the progression of the "main" plot than in how several different plot strands weave in and out of each other. For example, the house elf story line was totally cut from GOF, but it's important to Hermione's, Ron's, and Harry's development as people, especially in light of OOTP and HBP.

I'm looking forward to the OOTP film, but I can't imagine they'll do it justice. GOF had fantastic visuals, but the plot was so mauled it's hard to imagine how they'll turn OOTP into anything other than soup.

[MalachiConstant]

2. i'd have to agree with you on the first comment

I can't think of a single movie that has been adapted from a book to meet the standards set by the book. Part of the problem with the HP books though, is that they are just too long. The books aren't too long to be read (maybe for the initial audience they written for), but as movies they just have to cut so much out of the original work due to the time constraints. The only limiting factor I've found to affect the films is time. It's hard to convey such a complex plot and the feelings and personalities of the characters in 120-180 minutes.

If you've seen the new Narnia film you can almost witness the opposite effect. Because the Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe is about 100 pages, there's actually a lot of room to fill up the 2 hours of footage. Hence, there are many landscape scenes, and the battle is much more detailed than it ever was in the original text.

So, I think this leaves a lot of discretion up to the director of the film. They're responsible for what is revealed to us in the film and it's inevitable that scenes you and I may have thought to be revealing or important they just felt that they didn't have the time for it.

I recently watched Tom Cruise (i know, he's a lunatic) in Minority Report and thought that considering how intricate the plot is and how long the movie is that it's incredible, but not surprising, that the film is adapted from a short story by Philip K. Dick. Apparently brevity is relative and is easily observed in film adaptations.

[Matilda]

3. I agree that the length of the books makes a big difference.

I think it's rare that a film can do justice to a book, but with HP, I guess the writers had to make
a lot of choices from the beginning - there is just so much in the books, and you'd be there for a
day watching each one if everything was translated to the screen.

Perhaps they made a conscious decision to focus on main events rather than character, because I think
that's where the films fall down. It was seeing the films that made me realise that perhaps the
characters weren't really drawn very well in the books after all, because there's certainly no
depth of characterization in the films, and now that I go back to the books, I can see that very
few of them have any complexity at all. Only Snape has any layers, although we saw a bit more of
what drives Voldemort in HBP.

But as stand-alone films, apart from special effects, I really don't think they're very good.

[XemaSab]

4. Can you give some examples

Of how you think very few of the characters have any complexity?

I'll buy the argument for some of them, but I'd say most of the characters have some depth, and even the ones that don't appear to, you have to watch out for.

[Pithy Cherub]

5. The Potter films are crafted and cobbled together

by virtually different teams each time out of the gate. Steve Kloves did most of the screenplays. Order of the Phoenix is done by someone else. The movie adaptations seem geared towards box office receipts, commerical appeal and not to the actual emotional depth, life philosophy and nuance of the original books. The movies have been directed by multiple very talented people who looked at these as one offs and not a collection of movies designed to tell a story. At some point in the future these will be remade in the context of Lord of the Rings with the same people continuously working on the project. They also did not take their time when making the movies - they are on a production schedule to deliver profits at just the right time every two years, in the fourth quarter.

They have some first rate actors in the films and a couple of horrors (the new Dumbledore, for instance). The Trio seems to be growing into their roles, but they do seem to awkwardly make Ron less intelligent in the movies.

The films are good for imaginative scenery and visualizing but they are tres terrible for the full dramatic range of the story. they were not done as an homage to the books. Hence, the most terrible reactions to the plot distortions and maiming of key characters roles.

In agreement. The essence of Hogwarts, the children's lives, the nightmare of unbending organizational rules and the adult foibles are lost! :cry:

[MalachiConstant]

7. as long as you're not referring

to the boy that plays harry as being one of those first rate actors. with the exception of him the acting is pretty decent, but quite frankly he is terrible. and, i don't think there are two many movies that aren't released independently that are not geared towards box office receipts. hollywood is first and foremost a business, and unless you're talking about indie films (which HP obviously isn't) their primary goal is money.

and i honestly don't think they will ever be remade. prior to peter jackson's work there had never been a major lord of the rings undertaking. there were the two cartoons, but nothing remotely close to the scale of the HP films. Considering the scale of the LOTR movies and the amount of shooting that took place for them, they managed to squeeze out three 3+ hour films, almost 10 hours of footage, in only 4 years. By comparison I'd say that the HP crew has taken considerably more time with their productions.

[Pithy Cherub]

8. Yes, they will be remade.

Simply because it would make smart business sense and offer a different perspective to an existing global audience. The film rights and how they were negotiated for the first film may offer secondary rights (or not) to the same studio. There is a reason many popular films of all persuasions are remade - they have built-in audience and market share.

Warner Brothers certainly did not take their time when these were made because they wanted to capitalize quickly on the book's popularity success. (Ask the first director of Sorceror's Stone - he clearly said that they were in a hurry.) LOTR was a film, DECADES after Tolkein authored the works. Peter Jackson had been thinking of these films for a lifetime. Somebody will have the same level of commitment to do them correctly - with the appropriate nuance after all the books are completed. The film industry is geared around a fixed cost and profit margin on the commercial side. The film's time factor was not spurred by artistry but sophistry.

Daniel Radcliffe did just fine acting for a film that was made for time-compressed commercial profit purposes and not for the deeper nuances found within Rowling's books.

There are many films released from the large fim studios that are geared towards artistic expression and box office. The Lion King for example...

[MalachiConstant]

9. I still doubt they will be remade

The films that have been remade for the most part have been stand-alone films: godzilla, king kong, the italian job, solaris.... nobody is going to say "ok, let's remake these SEVEN films." that's just ridiculous. Frankly, if the fan base for the seventh movie is as large as it was for the first I would be suprirsed. You're making an assumption on how history will treat these films and assuming it will still have the same passionate audience at some unknown point in the future.

If ten years after HP is finished will people still be interested in it? Who knows, I sure don't know. Personally, I'm betting that 10 years after the books are finished Harry Potter will be a distant memory to me. I don't think George Lucas would have done episodes 1, 2, and 3 if he didn't know for certain that he had a fan base that was still enthusiastic about the series. Will Rowling's books receive that same treatment though? We'll just have to wait and see.

As for the first film being rushed: I can't exactly go and ask the director, but anybody working on a film will tell you that all movies are operating under time constraints. The first film still didn't hit the audience until over 4 years after the book hit shelves. That seems like a pretty good amount of time to me.

Oh, by the way, there's absolutley no evidence to suggest that Peter Jackson had been thinking of these movies for a lifetime. In fact he originally wanted to do a fantasy movie like LOTR and then went to Miramax and asked if he could do 2 LOTR movies. They accepted, things fell apart because they said it would cost too much, then he went to New LIne and the rest is history.

What kind of ridiculous qualifiers are you putting on Radcliffe's performance? It's really a simple assessment to make, did he act well or not? I don't think when somebody is up for the Oscar for Best Actor that the academy is saying: "his performance was awful, but it was for a time-compressed commercial film." Either it was good or it was bad. My opinion: Daniel Radcliffe is not a very good actor.

I never said that a large studio can't make a film that is both artistically pleasing and successful at the box office. you're putting words in my mouth there. I don't understand the Lion King example. How? What evidence? Or did you just arbitrarily pick some cartoon.

[Pithy Cherub]

10. They would make 10 HP films if there was money it.

Thank goodness, I spend time on film lots and speak with bona fide experts from creating to production to distribution channels and those who greenlight films that show way more business savvy. Movies do have time constraints, but in HP's case the director spoke about what did not get done correctly because of rushing. A great film that was award worthy was not the goal with HP - on-time was. Your arbitrary assessment about 4 years being enough time is yours alone. The books had commercial appeal and they needed a movie quick in case it waned. And hence the nature of the product. Classical literature, which the Harry Potter series will be, will always have a fan base. The prospect of potential profits is what will draw film makers to decide in which medium they may want to remake the films. You may have missed the abundance of all manner of remakes at the box office lately.

I used one example - on purpose - the Lion King, as it was just a cartoon that was foolishly dismissed by those with egg on their faces now. The Lion King revived the animation movie business but that was built on previous more modest Disney successes in animation. Just one example. A tiny company named Pixar decided there was untapped money in this animated film world, maybe you have heard of it. :rofl:

You have your opinion, but it doesn't mean it's good, worthy or better than anyone else's.

[MalachiConstant]

12. i could really care less what experience you claim to have;

the anonymity of the internet is a wonderful thing. Where is this claim that the director spoke about being rushed? please support it, your "expertise" isn't enough for me. I think we'd both agree that the HP books are incredible. I have thoroughly enjoyed each book, but your claim that HP will be classic literature is an opinion and nothing more. Whether a work is considered classic in itself is partially subjective. Whether the consensus is that HP is a classic will be determined by history, maybe we should at the very least wait until the series is finished before we decide if it is a classic. Even then, only time will truly prove either of our perspectives. Salinger, Fitzgerald, Vonnegut, Huxley, they all wrote works that are considered classics, but that doesn't mean that their works should be or will be made into blockbuster films.

And for the record, if you're suggesting that Pixar had a role to play in the creation of the Lion King you'd be wrong. Pixar's first feature film was Toy Story in 1995. Actually the example that you used, The Lion King, is slightly flawed. Animation actually peaked with The Lion King. But to illustrate the point here's a little data from imdb.com


Date Title Gross (in millions of dollars)
1989 The Little Mermaid 111.5
1992 Aladdin 217.4
1994 The Lion King 312.9
1995 Pocahantas 141.6
1995 Toy Story 191.8
1996 Hunchback of N,D. 98.9
1997 Hercules 99.0
1998 Mulan 120.6

In fact the first movie to come close to the success of The Lion King was the second Toy Story film which gross 245.8 million dollars in 1999.

I never did suggest that my opinion was better or more worthy than anybody else, I merely supplied a few facts to support my opinion, which you failed to do. In fact, you're the one that is pompously "rolling on the floor laughing." But that's just my opinion.

[TransitJohn]

19. ugh

Classical literature, which the Harry Potter series will be, will always have a fan base.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahahahahahahahahahahah
:crazy: :hide:

[XemaSab]

20. I'm sure it will always be regarded at least as a children's classic

A la Alice in Wonderland, where it can be enjoyed by children but the deeper plots and puzzles are only appreciated by adults.

[intheflow]

21. I think they'll be remade.

As a BBC or HBO (or such) mini-series. Since most people these days experience most films on thir home tv, it won't matter that they're not released in a theater. Video is where most of the movie industry money is made anyway.

[Pithy Cherub]

22. Yes. Actually, I left a giant hint as well.

Why would the HP series not be ripe for film animation as a re-make in that genre? As you noted, video or another content delivery sytem is where the BIG money is for film studios and production companies. Animating the HP series professionally is highly doable!

:woohoo:You got it! ;)
:toast:

[Withywindle]

6. The thing that really bothers me the most...

...is the real short shrift given to the adult characters. Why have great actors like Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman if you're not going to use them? Part of Harry's growing as a character is learning that the adult world around him is shady and creepy and multilayered and complicated and he's going to need his wits as well as his raw emotion (a lesson he doesn't seem to be learning quickly enough)? And so much of the plot is chickens of other generations coming home to roost.

How can you leave out things like the whole story about Sirius telling Snape to go see Remus in his werewolf form, and James saving Snape's life? How can you leave out the climactic hospital scene at the end of GoF where Snape and Sirius are forced to shake hands?

It's like all the filmmaking team thinks about is appealing to kids and selling cool dragon toys--well, they're both underestimating the kid fans (who have their own theories about the adults' backstories like everyone else) and forgetting that all the adult fans exist. You could get away with that for the first two movies maybe, but...man, if they take that approach again, OotP is going to SUCK.

[Matilda]

11. I think you may have hit on one of the big problems ...

they're asking a group of untried kids to carry the films, and while
they all have appeal, none of them at this stage of their lives, is
a very good actor. Plus there's nothing much in the writing for them
to come to grips with even if they were better at their craft.

They need the weight of the adult actors to help carry the films along,
but even those fine actors are battling to convey much real character.
You can't get better than Alan Rickman, and he plays Snape as straight
as he can trying to avoid turning him into a caricature (Michael Gambon
should take notes from him), but he's battling with a two-dimensional
script.

Perhaps the studio is at fault in aiming the films purely at children
(and probably underestimating them as well), instead of looking at
the qualities the books have that also give them appeal to adults. Of
course, I'm looking at the films from my point of view - I don't know
how children and teens feel about the things that are left out, or
whether they feel satisfied at the way the characters are presented.

[LWolf]

13. I'm not disappointed.

I never expect movies to be as good as the books they are based on.

I agree that the movies, more than the books, are for children.

So it's time to film OOTP; will they really capture the frustration, the feeling of threat that permeates Hogwarts, the fury that Umbridge invokes? Will Umbridge be GWB-like enough to carry it off?

[Mist]

14. While I understand there are time constraints for films, I really think

that GoF would have benefitted from an extra 15 or 20 minutes, to make the film more comprehensible to those who don't read the books. Yet I've always been bothered by the fact that the films are made for those who DON'T read the books--maybe it's good business sense, but the films are disappointing to those who've read the books, and confusing to those who haven't. Not a good compromise! About Radcliffe's acting, well, he's coming along fine. A big part of the problem is that the readers have access to HP's thoughts and observations, but since that's all internal, it doesn't come out much in the films. That's a scriptwriter fault, IMHO. And speaking of scriptwriters, I'm delighted Steve Kloves won't be doing the next HP film--the guy writes with a hatchet.

[XemaSab]

16. I thought it could have used 5 or 10 minutes

for those who DID read the books.

The parting of the ways was totally missing, which sets up Order of the Phoenix.

[Orsino]

15. They seem to be getting better.

The first was disappointing--though it looked fantastic--but the second was okay. The third was quite good. I will watch the fourth when it hits HBO or something.

[radfringe]

17. skimping to fit time format

I realize that the books are long and there are lots of twists and turns -- but if you haven't read the books you lose alot just watching the movies

my boss took his kids to see the first movie - he said he didn't really get it - he also said he hasn't read the books and that's probably why he's missing alot of the points...

[Matilda]

18. You miss the back-stories and all the magical lore

that J.K. Rowling is so good at. That's what I find so disappointing. Of course, time is limited,
but a different slant could make a big difference. As it is the films just focus on immediate
action and special effects, and I think that's why I feel so unsatisfied with them.