Predict 5th HP movie! [Warning: Book & Movie Spoilers]

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Yes. I know this is getting off-topic but I must say, despite audiences and critics labelling the later Potter films as "better" than before, I personally think they are getting much worse.

Events happen with no explanation. The climax of GoF would confuse anybody who hadn't read the book, and important information is just ignored or side-stepped completely.

I thought GoF was a terrible adaptation of the book. All the tight-plotting, subtle and not so subtle hints and clues, and the amazing revelation at the end which cross-referenced all the clues and mysteries thrown up by the story was missing. GoF is a story which has tighter plotting and internal logic than the vast majority of critically acclaimed thrillers, and the film threw it all away and kept hitting us with less-than-subtle polyjuce references in compensation.

I was very, very disappointed. After the disappointing Azkerban and now this, I feel that, as with most things these days, the Harry Potter films are taking the path of least resistance, and dumbing themselves down.

I saw Goblet of Fire for the first time today(yes, I finally decided to see it ) and I have to say, I agree with you completely.

While I do think it's a HUGE improvement of Prisoner of Azkaban(that's only because that porn director added a new direction that put a horrible taste in my mouth, especially since POA is my favorite Harry Potter book) I still thought Goblet of Fire wasn't very good, and would rank it below the first two(and even those weren't brilliant).

The film(GOF) jumped from one event to another, any one who doesn't read the books would instantly get confused. I mean, I know the book is long, but c'mon, SLOW DOWN A BIT!

I wanted much more information on the competetion, yet information was only hinted or not even touched on.

Oh and the acting was HORRIBLE!!! The kids are still problematic, but they really need to fire Michael Gambon! He was a horrible Dumbledoor and can't imagine anyone like him more than Richard Harris.

I did somewhat enjoyed it though, unlike POA. The special effects were a HUGE improvement, and looked impressive. I also thought Ralph Fiennes did a very nice performance as Voldermort, the best performance in the movie.

Buth other than that, I was disappointed.

They really need a talented director to direct the next ones. *sigh* Why did Spielberg have to turn down the first one?

[magicalwands]

They really need a talented director to direct the next ones. *sigh* Why did Spielberg have to turn down the first one?

Alas Rowling wanted a British film so HE got cut in the process as well. But would Spielberg really do all seven movies if he had started with 1? Or would we have crappy sequels now compared to Spielberg's masterpiece adaption for the first movie? It's just too bad because Spielberg had a vision for it.

[lord-of-sith]

They really need a talented director to direct the next ones. *sigh* Why did Spielberg have to turn down the first one?

Alas Rowling wanted a British film so HE got cut in the process as well. But would Spielberg really do all seven movies if he had started with 1? Or would we have crappy sequels now compared to Spielberg's masterpiece adaption for the first movie? It's just too bad because Spielberg had a vision for it.

But what would you rather have? Speilberg directing, or Daniel Radcliff starring. The main reason Speilberg wasn't choosen to direct was because he wanted Haley Joel Osment to star was Harry (Thank God that didn't happen). Also, I think all of the adults (as well as most of the kids) are suberb in GoF.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

But what would you rather have? Speilberg directing, or Daniel Radcliff starring. The main reason Speilberg wasn't choosen to direct was because he wanted Haley Joel Osment to star was Harry (Thank God that didn't happen). Also, I think all of the adults (as well as most of the kids) are suberb in GoF.

I don't recall that.

In fact, I believe Spielberg turned it down because he was interested in other projects. In fact here's an old article: http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,6 ... ewsrellink

Although, that confuses me, as if "War of the Worlds" was any better!

He also did the same for "Spider-Man", but thankfully, unlike the Harry Potter movies, the "Spider-Man" films were able to get a talented director.

[lord-of-sith]

Although, that confuses me, as if "War of the Worlds" was any better!

Amen! I though WotW was a mess.

[2099net]

While I do think it's a HUGE improvement of Prisoner of Azkaban(that's only because that porn director added a new direction that put a horrible taste in my mouth, especially since POA is my favorite Harry Potter book) I still thought Goblet of Fire wasn't very good, and would rank it below the first two(and even those weren't brilliant).

Well, I actually think Chamber of Secrets is the best HP film to date. Of course, the book it adapted wasn't one of JK's bricks, but it was a good adaptation, made into a good movie.

The film(GOF) jumped from one event to another, any one who doesn't read the books would instantly get confused. I mean, I know the book is long, but c'mon, SLOW DOWN A BIT!

I wanted much more information on the competetion, yet information was only hinted or not even touched on.

Well, like I said, my main problem was they dumbed down the mystery, because in the film there wasn't one. No unexplained events, nothing which made the viewer think "what's that all about then?" and thus, we lost the clever resolution to the story that the book gave us. As an adult reading what are essentially children's books (although there's no shame in that - in my opinion more adults should read children's books) it was the clever plotting and flawless tie-up of Goblet of Fire which impressed me more than any other Harry Potter book.

But there's was also much more missing from the film. I assume spoilers aren't needed but just in case:

At the end we felt no sense of betrayal when the real identity of Mad Eye was revealed, because the film showed nothing of the relationship beween Harry and the faux teacher. So as a result, without the subtle clues and the sense of betrayal at the end, the who second climax felt like a let-down after the ressurection scene, rather than the emotional shock of the novel.

But there's much more wrong with the film too. I remember the director moaning that he didn't have enough money to film the film as he envisioned it, and was complaining about Warner Bros not supporting the film, despite the fact that they spent enough money on it to feed millions of starving refugees for a year. I think the director should have paid more attention to his script, than concentrating on spectacle after spectacle.

Oh and the acting was HORRIBLE!!! The kids are still problematic, but they really need to fire Michael Gambon! He was a horrible Dumbledoor and can't imagine anyone like him more than Richard Harris.

Well, there's not really much they can do about Richard Harris. The "kids" acting is far from ideal, but that seems to be a particularly British thing - we have very few 'talented' and/or experienced child actors.

But there was a lot of good in the acting, including "teh" Tennant! I can't really fault the acting. It was a shame to see so little of the Weasely parents though... well parent, being as we never even saw Julie Walters.

I did somewhat enjoyed it though, unlike POA. The special effects were a HUGE improvement, and looked impressive. I also thought Ralph Fiennes did a very nice performance as Voldermort, the best performance in the movie.

But other than that, I was disappointed.

Well, it was still much better than most other films. It's just frustrating when (a) you know it could be better and (b) people keep heaping praise on it and you don't agree.

Well, special effects are overrated.



They really need a talented director to direct the next ones. *sigh* Why did Spielberg have to turn down the first one?[/quote]

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Well, I actually think Chamber of Secrets is the best HP film to date. Of course, the book it adapted wasn't one of JK's bricks, but it was a good adaptation, made into a good movie.

Well, I agree with you. COS is my favorite HP film to date as well. I do think the first two Harry Potter films were good, and I thought Chris Columbus did a fine job, I just think they get a bit boring the more you watch them.

I'm not sure if it's because of the fact these are two of the weakest books, or because of the director since he adapted TOO much from the books, but they definetely could've been better.

But still, I thought they were pretty good movies I could watch every once and a while.

Well, like I said, my main problem was they dumbed down the mystery, because in the film there wasn't one. No unexplained events, nothing which made the viewer think "what's that all about then?" and thus, we lost the clever resolution to the story that the book gave us. As an adult reading what are essentially children's books (although there's no shame in that - in my opinion more adults should read children's books) it was the clever plotting and flawless tie-up of Goblet of Fire which impressed me more than any other Harry Potter book.

But there's was also much more missing from the film. I assume spoilers aren't needed but just in case:

At the end we felt no sense of betrayal when the real identity of Mad Eye was revealed, because the film showed nothing of the relationship beween Harry and the faux teacher. So as a result, without the subtle clues and the sense of betrayal at the end, the who second climax felt like a let-down after the ressurection scene, rather than the emotional shock of the novel.

But there's much more wrong with the film too.

I agree.

Like I said before, they tried to include it in there, but it only contained hints that didn't really go into detail. Like when Harry found Croutch's body, or Mad Eyed Moody's strange character, or when MEM tried to give Harry the advice. I could see they were trying but they were just trying to include so much from the book, it had no mystery style to it, like you said.
I also felt they could've slowed down with a lot of it. Like for example, I did read the book, but it's been so long that I forgot how that person escapred and why she never saved her sister in the second competition. They never did tell the reason why in the movie, along with many other incidents, which I felt was kinda lazy filmmaking.

There were other problems, but I won't list them all.

Well, there's not really much they can do about Richard Harris. The "kids" acting is far from ideal, but that seems to be a particularly British thing - we have very few 'talented' and/or experienced child actors.

Well I know you can't bring back the dead, but I do think there is somebody out there in this world who could play Dumbledore as well as Richard.

I mean, Dumbledore is my personal favorite character in the franchise. He's a really nice and lovable guy, but when he needs to be serious, he can be VERY serious.

This is something I feel Michael Gambon has failed to show in the last two movies which is why I hated his performance.

As for the kids, well, I also don't like most kid actors in general, and I think the HP cast really do over-the-top acting. But I certainly felt they could've gotten better kid actors. I mean, not every movie has bad kid actor, they did well with "Charile and the Chocolate Factory".

Well, it was still much better than most other films. It's just frustrating when (a) you know it could be better and (b) people keep heaping praise on it and you don't agree. Well, special effects are overrated.

Exactly, and GOF had both of those points.

Yeah special effects are overrated, but hey sometimes they can be really impressive.

One of the reason I hated POA is because the special effects were overrated. Alot of the designs looked freaky and they didn't blend well in the human world at all. I did think GOF did a fine job, even if the dragon battle scene was over-the-top. I'm also surprised this didn't get an Oscar nomination for "Best Special Effects". Then again, why did King Kong win?

Anyway, back to the next movie, I do think it'll get tricky, especially since there really isn't much in that book that could work well as a movie, except for the beginning and end, but with a talented director, I think it could work.

[lord-of-sith]

T/P fan, you continue to bash the acting. However, are you just aiming this toward the children, or to the entire cast? Because I think that Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Ralph Feinnes, Brenden Gleeson, and (waits to be shot) Micheal Gambon all did superb jobs. Oh, and are you purposely mispelling Dumbledore? Because it seems like something a bit hard to mispell.

[Disneykid]

As much as I love Spielberg, I'm glad he didn't direct the first film. From what I understand, he wanted to combine events from the first three books to create a new narrative and wanted to change various character names.

Personally, I believe the films keep getting better.

Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone: Solid adaption, but so concerned with following the events that it's afraid to modify and expand. The few times it does expand, it does so oddly (Neville's broom acts even more possessed than Harry's bewitched one did, yet no one thinks it's been tampered with?). Bunny trails like the Norbert scene seem only to exist to please fans rather than help the narrative, and could've been replaced with more character-driven scenes. Because of the episodic nature of the book and how timid the film is about deviations, the pacing is very choppy (maybe this could be rectified by a director's cut).

Chamber of Secrets: Better than the first in that it learned to adapt scenes better without being a live-action set of storyboards. Action scenes are expanded, and the pacing is smoother. Like the first film, though, Chris Columbus is more concerned with getting the events right than the atmosphere and characterization (all of Ron's informative lines have been given to Hermione, leaving him strictly as a comedic sidekick). In doing so, the film kind of wanders around, which was fine for the first one considering we were being introduced to the world, but sort of bogs the film down now that we're already familiar with magic. Things are also left unexplained, but this is an editing problem rather than an adaptation problem because those questions are answered in the deleted scenes, which have been inserted into the film for TV airings.

Prisoner of Azkaban: Big leap in quality from the first two. Performances and lines are far more realistic and less storybook/showy. This is more of an example of a book adaptation than the previous ones. Alfonso Cuaron isn't afraid to omit events and subplots that, while add flavor to the book, distract from the main storyline in a film environment. He also isn't afraid to add scenes that work as glue in between in the main scenes, avoiding the type of choppy big-event-after-big event feeling prevalent in the first one and somewhat lingering in the second. The relocation of some established landmarks is a bit jarring at first, but ends up being more inspired than before. If anything, Cuaron's a little too enthusiastic about removing things (such as the Marauders explanation). Because of this, the third film (while being the second best in the film series) ends up feeling like the slightest one in terms of story due to all the fat being removed. This would also benefit from an extended cut.

Goblet of Fire: We finally get the balance almost perfectly right. The atmosphere and characterization from the last one remain intact, and Mike Newell adapts the book like Cuaron rather than re-enacting key scenes like Columbus. What makes this even better than the third is how Newell allows for at least some fat to fluff up the story so that we don't end up with a completely barebones version like Cuaron's. Newell is also more careful in what's cut out so that non-readers "get it" better than they may have gotten the last one. The only flaws I can think of are that Priori Incantantem is never explained (though this doesn't harm the film as much as the lack of Marauders did), and Rita Skeeter's character has no purpose with her comeuppance (would it really have been that hard to insert her in beetle form into two existing scenes and then have Hermione reveal her in the glass jar during the last scene?).

[numba1lostboy]

I agree that the films keep getting better, but not by much. The first two films were very bookish and, like people have said, doesn't really come alive on screen. I think that POA was very cool, aside from the blantant absence of very important information. The film was kinda artsy and had a vibe all its own, separate from the other films, which could be good or bad. GOF was nicely done, though I kinda felt it went back from POA's direction. Agreed, it was very episodic...but still, I bought the two-disc SE at 3/7/06 at 12:01am. NO JOKE!

Oh and I really don't see Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Unrated Director's Cut hitting shelves anytime soon. What would it add to the film?

[Disneykid]

Oh and I really don't see Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Unrated Director's Cut hitting shelves anytime soon. What would it add to the film?

From I understand, about 20 minutes was cut out of the film. The DVD only gives us five minutes' worth of cut footage, meaning the other 15 minutes are stored away somewhere waiting to be seen by the public. This is some of the stuff I can think of at the moment that was cut (besides the DVD footage):

* A longer explanation by Hagrid of the Potters' deaths.

* A longer introductory speech by McGonnagall to the first years.

* The Sorting Hat's song, which was actually recited as a poem rather than sung. You used to be able to hear this on the official Harry Potter site, but I believe it's been taken off.

* The students meeting Peeves on their way to their dormitories after the start-of-term feast.

* McGonnagall continuing with her lesson once Harry and Ron take their seats.

* Neville asking Hermione to kiss Trevor goodnight, but she just glares at him.

* A longer chess challenge.

* A longer climax with Voldemort.

* Dumbledore explaining to Harry about James and Snape's relationship.

Most of this I've gotten from interviews with the cast, and a bit of it can actually be seen in B-roll footage for the film (which is online somewhere if you look hard enough). Chris Columbus stated that he was doing a director's cut with all of the footage intact for ABC's premiere airing of the film back in 2003. For whatever reason, ABC decided not to use it, and instead only inserted the DVD's deleted scenes back in. At least ABC gave us the actual director's cut for Chamber of Secrets. Let's see if they'll do the same later this year for Prisoner of Azkaban, which also had a lot of footage cut out that didn't make it to DVD.

[magicalwands]

* The students meeting Peeves on their way to their dormitories after the start-of-term feast.

There are a bunch of scenes with Peeves they cut out. Apparently an actor was hired to play him and they shot a few scenes but they cut it because it made the movie so long. Remembering this, they BETTER include it on the extended dvd because they WILL make one because they WANT to make us happy.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

T/P fan, you continue to bash the acting. However, are you just aiming this toward the children, or to the entire cast? Because I think that Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Ralph Feinnes, Brenden Gleeson, and (waits to be shot) Micheal Gambon all did superb jobs.

Well to quote myself

I also thought Ralph Fiennes did a very nice performance as Voldermort, the best performance in the movie.

And I just saw it again, to get it even fresher in my mind, I still loved Ralph Fiennes' performance. It was totally brilliant and totally creepy! If I saw this movie before Janurary, I definetely would've given him a nomination in our Movie Awards.

As for the rest you mention, I actually thought all of the actors you mentioned did a decent job as well(except for Michael Gambon ), so to answer your question, yes, I was only talking about the kid actors.

I just don't like Michael Gambon, sorry, I just didn't like the way he portrayed my favorite character in the book.

Oh, and are you purposely mispelling Dumbledore? Because it seems like something a bit hard to mispell.

I didn't know I mispelled it! I'll go back and edit it.

As fo the director, I just found out on IMDB that David Yates will be directing Order of the Phoenix

I didn't know him before now, but from looking at his filmography, he has only directed a bunch of t.v. shows and miniseries! Definetely NOT a good sign!

[yankees]

Here are my Favorite Harry Potter Films in Order

1. Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire: I think that they did best on this one for many reasons. Newel did a great job at directing this. I felt that he added what made Colombus film so great and cuaron film so great and he put them together. Plus this one was very entertaining and even though they did rush a little they got all of the best parts in the book.

2. Harry Potter and The Sorcerers Stone: I think that this was the 2nd best film in the series because of what the story was. In the first book we are just being entered into Hogwarts. I think that Columbus did a great job of bring this film to the big screen. I think that he gave us a great introduction and Im glad he directed this one.

3. Harry Potter and The Prsioner of Azkaban: I had a really hard time deciding which one I liked better, Sorcerers Stone or Prisoner of Azkaban. I felt that Sorcerers Stone was better because it wasnt as dark. I know that the stories get more and more serious but I just found this one to be a little to serious at times when it didnt need to. But I loved Cuarons view of Hogwarts and I thought the the new changes were really well. I also agree that this was the first film in the series to not be as true as the books but the most entertaining. So Sorcerrs Stone was more true to the book but Prisoner Of Azkaban was more entertaining.

4. Harry Potter and The Chamber Of Secrets: I love all these films. They are all my favorite movies. The only problem with Chamber of Secrets is that it was too slow at times. I felt that this movie could have been a little shorter. It just dragged on at times but It had everything that was great about Sorcerers Stone.


I think that Order of The Pheonix will be a great movie. I heard that this guy was really good at directing the stuff on TV that he did.
________
BUY IOLITE

[2099net]

As fo the director, I just found out on IMDB that David Yates will be directing Order of the Phoenix

I didn't know him before now, but from looking at his filmography, he has only directed a bunch of t.v. shows and miniseries! Definetely NOT a good sign!

No. No. No. No. No. He directed State of Play. He is a God! But a few divinity points knocked off for directing "The Girl in the Cafe", making him a false idol, rather than "The" God.

Hey, coming from TV, at least he won't moan about the budget allocated to him!

[azul017]

What will be staying in Order of the Phoenix:

- Producer David Heyman has confirmed that Dan, Emma, and Rupert have already done some blue-screen work for Grawp and when Umbridge insults and gets carried away by the centaurs.
- Jamie Waylett has confirmed that scenes has been shot that have Umbridge favoring Slytherins over Gryffindors.
- Harry and Cho's kiss will happen, even with a delay (Dan got the flu the day before shooting of that scene was supposed to occur).
- Emma Watson (in an interview with an Australian morning show) confirmed that she just shot a scene where she "blasts Ron against the wall for making a patronizing, sexist remark" (could it be that Michael Goldenberg took that out of Half-Blood Prince and put it there?)
- When one of the scripts was lost (and then quickly recovered), someone said that the shooting script was 127 pages long.
- Snape's Worst Memory and scenes with the D.A. will be in the film.

[numba1lostboy]

- Emma Watson (in an interview with an Australian morning show) confirmed that she just shot a scene where she "blasts Ron against the wall for making a patronizing, sexist remark".

I can already say that that will be my favorite part of the movie!!! I love Emma...although her acting was kinda sub-par in GOF.

[azul017]

Sorry for bumping this up, but another tidbit about the news about OOTP.

- In an interview with a BBC talk show, Rupert Grint (Ron) and James and Oliver Phelps (Fred and George) confirm that they just shot the scene where Umbridge and the Inquisitatorial Squad restrain Harry and the rest of the D.A. and Umbridge slaps Harry across the face (Rupert added that they had to do many takes for that scene alone).
- There are rumors going around that Nicolas Hooper (a regular collaborator with David Yates) will score OOTP, not John Williams or Patrick Doyle.

[Karushifa]

I did think GOF did a fine job, even if the dragon battle scene was over-the-top. I'm also surprised this didn't get an Oscar nomination for "Best Special Effects". Then again, why did King Kong win?

Those are good questions. I thought that the SFX in GoF were MUCH improved over the clumsy CGI quidditch scenes in the previous films, and the whole underwater scene was great. It was at least on the level of Star Wars, which really hadn't done anything new since Attack of the Clones.

Meanwhile, the CGI dinosaurs in King Kong were even WORSE than the ones in Jurassic Park, which was made waaaaaay back in 1993, and it STILL won. I think the win was mostly due to the performance-capture rendering of Kong himself, but still. That's no excuse for minor league dinos, they should have known better than that.

[azul017]

More OOTP news:

In an interview with MTV, Rupert Grint discusses the scenes he's shooting for OOTP now:

For now, he's knee-deep in shooting fight scenes for "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," due June 13, 2007. Grint's already wrapped the scene where he and Harry take on Malfoy's henchman Crabbe and Goyle in Umbridge's office, and he's currently in a weeklong stretch where Potter teaches an underground Defense Against the Dark Arts class to a group of rebel students calling themselves Dumbledore's Army (see "Harry Potter's 'Phoenix' Begins Rising Next Week"). These take place in the Room of Requirement, a magical room that becomes whatever you need of it. The students need to learn to fight, so they practice stunning, disarming and other spells on one another.

"I'm dueling Hermione," Grint said, "and I get thrown back a lot, which we do with me wearing a harness. We're doing quite a few stunts, but the really big fight scenes are coming up."

Wow, the upcoming scenes do make me have high hopes in that OOTP will rock...