Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

4th and 6th are probably the weakest because they were forced to cut out so much from the books, the whole thing felt disconnected and rushed. The 4th is probably my favorite book behind 7.

But 5, they somehow was able to include everything they need to have a coherent movie and didn't have that rushed feeling. 1-3 didn't have it cause they were smaller books, and 7 didn't cause it is obviously two movies.
 
I wonder what these movies could have been like if they had been made after the success of Lord of the Rings, particularly the extended editions.

But then we wouldn't have the perfect cast they somehow managed to get.
 
I heard Terry Gilliam was JK Rowling's choice to direct the franchise.

I think they should have cut out 90% of the series and just summed it all up into a single film directed by Edgar Wright.

I don't care much for Harry Potter so I'm just going to leave this thread.
 
vader-voldemort-chart-5.jpg
 

That is absolutely perfect.

I heard Terry Gilliam was JK Rowling's choice to direct the franchise.

I think they should have cut out 90% of the series and just summed it all up into a single film directed by Edgar Wright.

I don't care much for Harry Potter so I'm just going to leave this thread.

I like the idea of Terry Gilliam directing the films.

I've seen the first three movies and thought they were all crap. I've not read the books, though.
 
You didn't like the third one? Alfonso Cuarón!
 
The third one was the best. The newest one was a close second. The eighth one will be the best.
 
I kind of take for granted that none of the films after the first really make sense, so I think the third one is still one of the very best. The first thing I said leaving the theater after seeing it was "they cut out so much of the plot that it made no sense without knowing the book", but it has the best showmanship of any of them. It also really has a sort of.... confidence in itself that none of the others really have.... I don't know how else to put it. All the weird stuff like the transition from the train-car to Hogwarts with the choir, and every scene with dementors in it.

Plus, John Williams. The entire concept of adapting the Shakespearean witches' spell and turning it into a major motif throughout the film was creative genius. The number one reason I can't picture the next film being the best one is that Williams isn't scoring it.

I would've loved it if Cuaron or Mike Newell had done all the films from 5-8.
 
Last edited:
I guess it's because I read the books, but I don't really see the movies as not making sense. And I love that 3 uses all those practical effects instead of CGI whenever possible, it feels more "real."

I didn't see Prince of Persia, but it seems like Mike Newell trying to launch his own franchise, the same way it seems like Columbus realized he messed up leaving Potter and is trying to get it back with Percy Jackson.
 
I guess it's because I read the books, but I don't really see the movies as not making sense.

Me and (as far as I know) Houde read the books too, though.

But my view's similar to yours - I can enjoy the movies without being troubled by all the plot holes because I know all the stuff in the books that fills them in.

And I love that 3 uses all those practical effects instead of CGI whenever possible, it feels more "real."

Agreed, for everything.

2 was actually pretty good about this too, with the animatronic Fawkes, Basilisk and Aragog.
 
Me and (as far as I know) Houde read the books too, though.

But my view's similar to yours - I can enjoy the movies without being troubled by all the plot holes because I know all the stuff in the books that fills them in.

Yeah, I guess my mind just automatically fills things in or I just don't think of it while watching scenes I've read being enacted.


BLITTTTTTTTTTTZ!

A hundred and forty-nine.

I wish I had the time to do this right now, but I am definitely going to remember to do it later.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top