He means that you are deliberately inviting confrontation by posting an unconsidered and unsupported opinion.
In my own, albeit humble, opinion, the series only got going with the third film, and since then has improved with almost every installment, the only falter being "Order" (number 5).
The usual argument is that "they don't seem as magical any more," which, for me, just doesn't wash. The films, as with the books, have increased in the adult nature of their tone as the series has moved forward, and have been far more engaging for it.
The first two films were just a series of box-ticking excersises, submitting to film a series of memorable set pieces from the books without tying them together with any coherence.
He means that you are deliberately inviting confrontation by posting an unconsidered and unsupported opinion.
In my own, albeit humble, opinion, the series only got going with the third film, and since then has improved with almost every installment, the only falter being "Order" (number 5).
The usual argument is that "they don't seem as magical any more," which, for me, just doesn't wash. The films, as with the books, have increased in the adult nature of their tone as the series has moved forward, and have been far more engaging for it.
The first two films were just a series of box-ticking excersises, submitting to film a series of memorable set pieces from the books without tying them together with any coherence.
He means that you are deliberately inviting confrontation by posting an unconsidered and unsupported opinion.
In my own, albeit humble, opinion, the series only got going with the third film, and since then has improved with almost every installment, the only falter being "Order" (number 5).
The usual argument is that "they don't seem as magical any more," which, for me, just doesn't wash. The films, as with the books, have increased in the adult nature of their tone as the series has moved forward, and have been far more engaging for it.
The first two films were just a series of box-ticking excersises, submitting to film a series of memorable set pieces from the books without tying them together with any coherence.
This - completely
3 is still actually my favorite of the ones I've seen so far - not seen the newest one yet - going to give the crowds a chance to die down a bit ....
When 5 came out I did not like it one bit. I'm still not that much of a fan. I found David Yates' directing style EXTREMELY unpalatable to begin with. 6 was an improvment (although it had its own flaws) and 7 a big improvement.
My own personal favourite movies are probably 3, 4 and 7.
If I say "I don't like Harry Potter at all' does that mean I'm trolling?
Lol, some fans do seem to get very protective of the ''legacy''*sniggers* that is Harry Potter.
Just informing some of them that it's a kids film has them frothing at the mouth.
If I say "I don't like Harry Potter at all' does that mean I'm trolling?
If you don't like Harry Potter then that's entirely your perogative, but the OP just made a rather general statement without backing it up, if he'd actually explained why he feels the quality of the franchise has waned since "Prisoner" I'd have sat back and thought: Fair enough.
Oh, and GOGO2, not sure where you got "Legacy" from, nobody here has mentioned it as such.
And yes, Harry Potter is a childrens' series based on childrens' books, but I'm still not sure why that should exclude any adults from enjoying either the films or the books: Mary Poppins is a children's film, but remains one of the finest peices of cinema ever produced.
the OP just made a rather general statement without backing it up
That doesn't make it trolling. Probably as much as 50% of threads on DS are based on much the same.
If they had said:
"Harry potter is sh*t and anyone that likes it are morons" then THAT would be trolling, but they didn't.
The response from the poster I quoted was a total over reaction, quite frankly, and if there is anything wrong with this thread I'd say it's that post, not the OP's.
In fact, all the OP seems to have said was they preferred the earlier parts of the francise. Hardly a crime. :rolleyes:
But surely not backing up the comment just invites criticism and ends up wasting bandwidth and everybody's time.
Your still missing the point. Accusing someone of being a troll when they quite clearly aren't in this context is actually against the t&c of this board and is far more unhelpful than the OP was.
And i fail to see how this thread can't be a constructive one, if people stop being so defensive about posts from anyone that is not 100% positive about the HP franchise.
I'm going to leave it there, but seriously, calling someone a troll just for disagreeing with you is really silly.
imo, without Chris Columbus, John Williams and Richard Harris they are a fraction of what they were.
I found Columbus' direction to be ponderous, Williams' score to be, well, just another Williams score, and Harris' Dumbledore to be a bit feeble and lacking in any sort of power.
The bit in Goblet when Dumbledore gets angry at Harry always seems to get highlighted as a problem by some people, whereas personally that's exactly what I want to see from Dumbledore, a bit of balls and not just a nice wrinkly old man, he's the most powerful wizard in the world FFS!
I found Columbus' direction to be ponderous, Williams' score to be, well, just another Williams score, and Harris' Dumbledore to be a bit feeble and lacking in any sort of power.
The bit in Goblet when Dumbledore gets angry at Harry always seems to get highlighted as a problem by some people, whereas personally that's exactly what I want to see from Dumbledore, a bit of balls and not just a nice wrinkly old man, he's the most powerful wizard in the world FFS!
I never liked either Dumbledore , I think peter O'toole would've been a better choice .
I found Columbus' direction to be ponderous, Williams' score to be, well, just another Williams score, and Harris' Dumbledore to be a bit feeble and lacking in any sort of power.
The bit in Goblet when Dumbledore gets angry at Harry always seems to get highlighted as a problem by some people, whereas personally that's exactly what I want to see from Dumbledore, a bit of balls and not just a nice wrinkly old man, he's the most powerful wizard in the world FFS!
Blimey. You and me would get on like a house on fire.
Have you read the books? I haven't personally so maybe that's why I liked Richard Harris.
I agree that Peter O'toole would have been my second choice. I assume that he was asked after RH passed away. He seemed the obvious choice.
I cannot agree with you at all about the JW score. Personally I think it is different to anything else he's done and imo personified wizardry perfectly.
what i will say is that up to NO3 they were 100% childrends films, yes under 5's could put them on, as the books moved on so the film had to, they start getting darker, the fun starts to be less, you strat to understand the world they live in is not a happy one.and how dark it can be, if you are a fan of easy going films then just stick to the first 3, but if you likethe whole world of harry potter then as a whole the films work verry well. and have not gone down hill...they have just moved on.
1 and 2 felt too much like the book - trying to be too faithful to the books. I just dont think they have been made into good films. Felt like a "read a-long" to moving pictures whilst reading the books at the same time.
I thought the 3rd one was the best film to date - there are so many little quirky things in it that are hilarious. best adaptation so far.
the 4th one was a good adaptation - but could of benefitted being much longer. Not quite sure why its panned as much as it is by critics. The director had an awful time.
the 5th one - well - was never overly keen on this one. David Yates style felt messy in parts. It is a word heavy book and quite boring and would have been a hard job to adapt anyway. However, the film itself could have been better and certainly could of benefited being much much longer. Quite liked where it was going - but felt very heavily edited. I did like how they turned Dudley at the beginning into Micheal Carrol the loto lout from Norfolk! the end battle sequence is truely excellent though and done well. the best bit in the whole damn film.
The 6th - well - I enjoyed the book a lot - but the movie felt like a wasted oppertunity. It was bloody boring as well. What was the point of calling it "...And The Half Blood Prince". It may of been called something else - as that whole sub plot of the half blood prince didnt really come into it at all much. I believe there was sequences filmed of a young Snape and young James Potter - but it was all cut out. Could of been much better. felt totally demoralised when i walked out of the cinema last year. like, i had just lost 3 hours of my ****ing life. I've never seen it since.
not seen the new one yet. lots of positive feedback though so far. Warner Brothers are a bit of a money grabber though - why make 7 films out of 7 books when you can make 8 films out of 7 books. But in a way, i am glad this particular adaptation is going to be longer.
Just finished watching 3 and 4 now. 2 great films.
Just a point regarding Dumbledore. I think Michael Gambon's portrayal has really grown on me now. I got so used to Richard Harris take on him I found it hard to acclimatise to a new person playing the role but on reflection Gambon brings so much life to the role I don't think that Harris could.
The first film will always be a favourite though. The kids do so well in it considering it's their first film and they're all so young, full marks to them for their performance, but John Williams' score wins it for me every time.
I'm working my way through the films before going to see 7a. I think i've got Potter fever.
Red+Blooded
Posts: 4,676
Comments
What's that mean.
In my own, albeit humble, opinion, the series only got going with the third film, and since then has improved with almost every installment, the only falter being "Order" (number 5).
The usual argument is that "they don't seem as magical any more," which, for me, just doesn't wash. The films, as with the books, have increased in the adult nature of their tone as the series has moved forward, and have been far more engaging for it.
The first two films were just a series of box-ticking excersises, submitting to film a series of memorable set pieces from the books without tying them together with any coherence.
AGREED!
Me too!
This - completely
3 is still actually my favorite of the ones I've seen so far - not seen the newest one yet - going to give the crowds a chance to die down a bit ....
When 5 came out I did not like it one bit. I'm still not that much of a fan. I found David Yates' directing style EXTREMELY unpalatable to begin with. 6 was an improvment (although it had its own flaws) and 7 a big improvement.
My own personal favourite movies are probably 3, 4 and 7.
not even close.
If I say "I don't like Harry Potter at all' does that mean I'm trolling?
Lol, some fans do seem to get very protective of the ''legacy''*sniggers* that is Harry Potter.
Just informing some of them that it's a kids film has them frothing at the mouth.
If you don't like Harry Potter then that's entirely your perogative, but the OP just made a rather general statement without backing it up, if he'd actually explained why he feels the quality of the franchise has waned since "Prisoner" I'd have sat back and thought: Fair enough.
Oh, and GOGO2, not sure where you got "Legacy" from, nobody here has mentioned it as such.
And yes, Harry Potter is a childrens' series based on childrens' books, but I'm still not sure why that should exclude any adults from enjoying either the films or the books: Mary Poppins is a children's film, but remains one of the finest peices of cinema ever produced.
That doesn't make it trolling. Probably as much as 50% of threads on DS are based on much the same.
If they had said:
"Harry potter is sh*t and anyone that likes it are morons" then THAT would be trolling, but they didn't.
The response from the poster I quoted was a total over reaction, quite frankly, and if there is anything wrong with this thread I'd say it's that post, not the OP's.
In fact, all the OP seems to have said was they preferred the earlier parts of the francise. Hardly a crime. :rolleyes:
I think the 3rd one was prob the best .
(has emma watson learned to act yet ? ( actually I'll clarify that - she wasn't so bad early on but seems to have gotten worse )
Your still missing the point. Accusing someone of being a troll when they quite clearly aren't in this context is actually against the t&c of this board and is far more unhelpful than the OP was.
And i fail to see how this thread can't be a constructive one, if people stop being so defensive about posts from anyone that is not 100% positive about the HP franchise.
I'm going to leave it there, but seriously, calling someone a troll just for disagreeing with you is really silly.
I found Columbus' direction to be ponderous, Williams' score to be, well, just another Williams score, and Harris' Dumbledore to be a bit feeble and lacking in any sort of power.
The bit in Goblet when Dumbledore gets angry at Harry always seems to get highlighted as a problem by some people, whereas personally that's exactly what I want to see from Dumbledore, a bit of balls and not just a nice wrinkly old man, he's the most powerful wizard in the world FFS!
I never liked either Dumbledore , I think peter O'toole would've been a better choice .
Interesting, I could see that, there's just the right level of insanity behind those eyes!
Blimey. You and me would get on like a house on fire.
Have you read the books? I haven't personally so maybe that's why I liked Richard Harris.
I agree that Peter O'toole would have been my second choice. I assume that he was asked after RH passed away. He seemed the obvious choice.
I cannot agree with you at all about the JW score. Personally I think it is different to anything else he's done and imo personified wizardry perfectly.
I thought the 3rd one was the best film to date - there are so many little quirky things in it that are hilarious. best adaptation so far.
the 4th one was a good adaptation - but could of benefitted being much longer. Not quite sure why its panned as much as it is by critics. The director had an awful time.
the 5th one - well - was never overly keen on this one. David Yates style felt messy in parts. It is a word heavy book and quite boring and would have been a hard job to adapt anyway. However, the film itself could have been better and certainly could of benefited being much much longer. Quite liked where it was going - but felt very heavily edited. I did like how they turned Dudley at the beginning into Micheal Carrol the loto lout from Norfolk! the end battle sequence is truely excellent though and done well. the best bit in the whole damn film.
The 6th - well - I enjoyed the book a lot - but the movie felt like a wasted oppertunity. It was bloody boring as well. What was the point of calling it "...And The Half Blood Prince". It may of been called something else - as that whole sub plot of the half blood prince didnt really come into it at all much. I believe there was sequences filmed of a young Snape and young James Potter - but it was all cut out. Could of been much better. felt totally demoralised when i walked out of the cinema last year. like, i had just lost 3 hours of my ****ing life. I've never seen it since.
not seen the new one yet. lots of positive feedback though so far. Warner Brothers are a bit of a money grabber though - why make 7 films out of 7 books when you can make 8 films out of 7 books. But in a way, i am glad this particular adaptation is going to be longer.
Just a point regarding Dumbledore. I think Michael Gambon's portrayal has really grown on me now. I got so used to Richard Harris take on him I found it hard to acclimatise to a new person playing the role but on reflection Gambon brings so much life to the role I don't think that Harris could.
The first film will always be a favourite though. The kids do so well in it considering it's their first film and they're all so young, full marks to them for their performance, but John Williams' score wins it for me every time.
I'm working my way through the films before going to see 7a. I think i've got Potter fever.