Movie: Harry Potter 4

[Knives122]

I thought the 4th was the best one. the first two felt like scooby doo movies, and if I wanted to see that I would've watched a scooby doo movie.

and there's suppose to be seven in all. and I haven't heard anything about the actors not wanting to do it anymore.

[Munsu]

Yeah, last I heard they were going to make 7 movies...

If someone doesn't want to do it anymore, I would guess it would be some of the older actors, I can't imagine any of the young ones complaining since this is pretty much the biggest movies they'll ever do.

[Zidarri the Exile]

Knives122, the movie had no depth, no . . . story. It was just random parts of the book put together to make an hour and a half movie. Not only did they leave out to many important parts, but they also changed to much.

Also, Harry Potter is for kids 13 and under. So of course, a couple of the books are gonna be Scooby-Doo-ish. The fact that they actually had someone die was utterly surprising to me, because of the age-range for the books.

Movie 4 was an absolute atroscity, compared to the first three. It's even worse because Harry Potter sucks, in general.

[Augury]

The Short:

The movie isn't too good because it's forced.


The Long:

The Harry Potter movies all suffer because of time restraints. The initial, rigid idea of doing one movie per year burns out the people involved in its production. Rowling's storytelling style of introducing many small elements and weaving them together in a long book also becomes a problem since each movie isn't going to go much longer than three hours - there's only so much material that can be covered. As a result, the movies really fall short because the people who haven't read the books tend to not understand what's going on from what's left out, and the people who have read the books often feel that not enough is covered or the material that is covered is done inadequately. However, most of the people who rated the movie as okay or better are the book-readers and are able to link together anything that might've been missed from low-tone conversations or quick references in the movie. There are also casting issues: Dumbledore and Lupin have been mentioned and they seem to be the worst offenders.

One of my professors once said that a Chinese director in the 1950s Communist China was given the impossible job of making a film about the Opium War (History Sidenote: China was totally dominated by the British in this "conflict," and a directive from Mao for this film means that it required a positive spin). I'd say that the director of the Harry Potter films was given an impossible job, so naturally we're seeing lots of thumbs-down opinions.

In the end though, I am also disappointed in the movies but I think they do hit some good points. Some characters are well-casted in contrast to Dumbledore or Lupin, and the film captures transitions certain elements of Rowling's fantasy world to film nicely, such as scenery and magical creatures. I saw Harry Potter 4 last December and I actually stopped watching it part way through (having watched the file that my brother downloaded, being the pirates that we are), although I finished the rest of the movie later.

[Zidarri the Exile]

I concur!

The main problem is that the series IS targeted to pre-teens, yet most of the fans of it are 15-40.

One reason I hate the series is because it's such a hokus-pokus style of magic. There is no depth to anything she has written in the series except in book 5, which was my favorite book. She tries to make depth now, in the later books, but it fails, horribly. Explain how the magic works slowly, but surely, I say, and you will have a series that is even more popular than this.

I can't stand this series, because of the lack of depth. Where's the fun in reading about a boy who, SOMEHOW, survived the STRONGEST spell from the STRONGEST wizard. Fuck that. No, make it so that the boy did survive, but that the one who tried to kill him was only a weak pawn, and his master, the real strongest one, the one you least except.


>< Harry Potter, a boy of eleven years, has grown up in a shitty household where his aunt, uncle, and cousin abuse him. He finds out that he is a wizard, and his parents were killed by an evil one, while he believed they died in a car crash. Incedently, the one who killed his parents also left Harry an unusual scar. It looks like a bolt of lightning, right on his forehead. He is famous for surviving this wizard's most atrocous spell.

Beware, Harry Potter, for the one you trust beyond all others, is your true enemy.><

And you find out that Dumbledore is the master behind the one who killed his parents, and he knows Harry is the boy he needs to kill, but he has come to love him like a true student of Hogwarts, and in the end, destroys himself on accident because he couldn't kill his only survivor.


Now, that, would be a sickening plot twist, one that would grab hold of your throat, and choke you to within an inch of your life.

[Augury]

Well like you said, the series is targetted to pre-teens, so the focus tends to lie upon overall themes such as "love is the strongest magic." Plot holes or detailed descriptions of the inner workings of a created world come second. The fact that the Harry Potter series has attracted so many older fans is a testament to the success of the other non-primary elements that are incorporated into the story.

EDIT @ below: Huh? Book 6 is already out, at least in hardcover in the U.S.

[drims]

I like all the Harry Poter books, all of them show a cool the new wizard enviroment it has. Also im really into anything that is sci-fi, so this caght my attention. Sadly enough since each book is pretty long, the movies arent able to capture every aspect from the books. And yes Zidarri I never expected "that" person to be 'one'....

I wonder how the next book is going to be. The fifth just left you hanging wanting MORE.