Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is anybody else hoping for a better movie then what we have seen so far. GOF was terrible compared to the book, and they keep switching directors to which is not helping.
Any takers??

Me. confused This has been worrying me for some time. confused Chris Columbus, the director of the first two movies, was the best. And as they keep switching directors, it just gets worse....

Really? I thought they got better. No offense, but the first two were the longest ones. I mean no wonder I use to hate Harry Potter, the first two movies put me to sleep! Don't get me wrong now, I LOVE ALL HARRY POTTER BOOKS AND MOVIES! But you must admit, those two were as if he was trying to put everything from the book into the movie. No one, and I mean NO ONE would sit in a movie theatre for 5 hours!

I would. I think that the 3rd movie ruined them. The 1st and 2nd were pretty good.

I never said they weren't. I just said they were too long.

They've certainly got better, and not simply because the books become darker; the Chamber of Secrets is probably the tighest Harry Potter book plotwise, but the film done it little to no justice.

Alfonso Cuaron (Prisoner of Azkaban) is the best director to have tackled Harry Potter out of them all (most raw talent and work to back that up), shame he only done one. Albeit my favourite and in my opinion the best

I'm glad Spielberg didn't do it in the end, Hayley Joel Osmond as Harry? Nah mate.

Originally posted by d-fly_girl008
I would. I think that the 3rd movie ruined them. The 1st and 2nd were pretty good.

Originally posted by d-fly_girl008
I would. I think that the 3rd movie ruined them. The 1st and 2nd were pretty good.

I definitely agree. confused

I'm not sure I understand your opinions though, as a film, irrelevant of its source material; the third is really a great stepping stone from a childish and unimaginitive first two films, into a film that carries it own merit.

I think my favorite one was the third one...the fourth one wasn't nearly as good as the book

Originally posted by exanda kane
I'm not sure I understand your opinions though, as a film, irrelevant of its source material; the third is really a great stepping stone from a childish and unimaginitive first two films, into a film that carries it own merit. The third movie sucks. Alfonso Quaron should have never been involved with it. Plus, I hate the fact that they changed the sets, moved the location of the whomping willow, etc. Oh, well though, to each their own. I personally think the first two were the best, the other two just seemed to move too quickly.

Originally posted by exanda kane
I'm not sure I understand your opinions though, as a film, irrelevant of its source material; the third is really a great stepping stone from a childish and unimaginitive first two films, into a film that carries it own merit. Remember, it's still based off a childrens book. It IS a childrens movie too.

I agree with DM: the third movie was awful. The third book is often cited as the favorite of many fans (but certainly not mine), whereas the third movie was rushed and less interesting than the first two.

I watched the first 4 movies, having never read any of the books, and the one that I was most impressed with was the second film. When I first saw it I realized that there was potential for a lot deeper, darker, and thicker plot/storyline in the future...I guess I just never expected JK to incorporate so much greek mythology and meanings behind the names of characters...(for the record, my favorite movie is now the first movie in hindsight, though when I first saw it I was quite bored)...

So now I've read all the books and I believe that the series gets better with each novel (with the slight exception of the sixth book). I think OotP is one of the best books I've ever read when you consider: (1) sheer entertainment, (2) all the subplots that set the stage for the final two novels (3) the prophecy, (4) Harry losing a loved one, (5) the start of the second war, (6) a 200 pg climax with the fiasco at the Ministry of Magic...and I read a LOT. JMO though.

Originally posted by Nickey
Really? I thought they got better. No offense, but the first two were the longest ones. I mean no wonder I use to hate Harry Potter, the first two movies put me to sleep! Don't get me wrong now, I LOVE ALL HARRY POTTER BOOKS AND MOVIES! But you must admit, those two were as if he was trying to put everything from the book into the movie. No one, and I mean NO ONE would sit in a movie theatre for 5 hours! You need to learn to appreciate the art of cinema.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
The third movie sucks. Alfonso Quaron should have never been involved with it. Plus, I hate the fact that they changed the sets, moved the location of the whomping willow, etc. Oh, well though, to each their own. I personally think the first two were the best, the other two just seemed to move too quickly.

Alfonso Cuaron is the best thing that happened to the film franchise, honestly; instead of the uneven pacing and certain cringeworthy scenes of the firt two movies, Harry Potter finally became the dark children's fantasy it is supposed to be (As someone mentioned, yes, a Children's Book, but hardly a the cute Disney story portrayed in the first two films eh?).

The first two films were simply straight (attempted) adaptations of the book, and if you like them for that reason, then I can understand. But Prisoner of Azkaban stands on its own as a film (And I'm glad they finally can be considered real films!).

Hogwarts finally looks a little menacing and not the dream school of both the Dead Poets Society and High School Musical. After all, it's not a playground, it's an ancient place with alot of dirty secrets. I must say, I enjoyed the use of the Whomping Willow in establishing the time too.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Alfonso Cuaron is the best thing that happened to the film franchise, honestly; instead of the uneven pacing and certain cringeworthy scenes of the firt two movies, Harry Potter finally became the dark children's fantasy it is supposed to be (As someone mentioned, yes, a Children's Book, but hardly a the cute Disney story portrayed in the first two films eh?).

The first two films were simply straight (attempted) adaptations of the book, and if you like them for that reason, then I can understand. But Prisoner of Azkaban stands on its own as a film (And I'm glad they finally can be considered real films!).

Hogwarts finally looks a little menacing and not the dream school of both the Dead Poets Society and High School Musical. After all, it's not a playground, it's an ancient place with alot of dirty secrets. I must say, I enjoyed the use of the Whomping Willow in establishing the time too. Dirty secrets.... nahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Come on, do not tell me 300 teenagers and staff (Actually, how many kids are there?) refrain from any sexual activity. Your effectively bunking up 300 (again, how many?) puberty fuelled teens in a remote location with all sorts of hallucinegatic potions and I guess, drugs.

Hence, dirty secrets

Do you guys really think the first two movies were off from the book?If so,Then you guys probably haven't seen "Narnia-The Lion,The Witch, and The Wardrobe" movie.

The Chamber of Secrets movie was the best being that it was closest to the book then the others ever was.So far I see little hope for this one coming out.
In the reviews it looks nothing like the book at all.The sixth and seventh one better be good.Or alot of us are going to be very disapointed.jm

Being "closest to the book" does not mean it was a particuarly good film.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Being "closest to the book" does not mean it was a particuarly good film. I agree to an extent.

the first two movies bored me to tears. u book purists need to make ur own movies then if u don't like the direction the movies are going now.

Originally posted by Member.
the first two movies bored me to tears. u book purists need to make ur own movies then if u don't like the direction the movies are going now. Oh holy crap, don't start labeling people! We haven't had a debate where we had to label people since everyone was big on shipping.

my opinion on the movies is that they leave out too many things and take too many pauses were its just trying to set a mood. Just use the books info and dont have scenes of harry just staring out a window.

Impractical.

Originally posted by ndfreak
my opinion on the movies is that they leave out too many things and take too many pauses were its just trying to set a mood. Just use the books info and dont have scenes of harry just staring out a window.
Thats why I thought 1,2 &3rd were really good.

I liked all the movies; don't get me wrong. It's just that the third and fourth movies actually gave the series some merit of its own. The first two didn't do much for general audiences, instead focusing on the core fanbase with rather uninspired productions.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Being "closest to the book" does not mean it was a particuarly good film.

Leaving stuff out of the films will not make them any better.

Originally posted by Nickey
Really? I thought they got better. No offense, but the first two were the longest ones. I mean no wonder I use to hate Harry Potter, the first two movies put me to sleep! Don't get me wrong now, I LOVE ALL HARRY POTTER BOOKS AND MOVIES! But you must admit, those two were as if he was trying to put everything from the book into the movie. No one, and I mean NO ONE would sit in a movie theatre for 5 hours! I know people that HAVE sat in theatres for 5 hours plus. There's a cinema near here that play trilogies. They had full houses for the LOTR trilogy, and the Godfather Trilogy. The entire trilogy of LOTR in length is a good 10 hours, and godfather about 8. And they do a fairly regular business.

SO yes, there are people who will sit in a theatre for 5 hours or more.

Originally posted by Forcewielder
Leaving stuff out of the films will not make them any better. leaving out some stuff not pertinent to the overall plot is sometimes needed.

Originally posted by Forcewielder
Leaving stuff out of the films will not make them any better.

Yes, it will. You don't seem to appreciate that literature and cinema are both different mediums.

Yeah, I would have to say that filmaking is clearly an art all by itself. The Harry Potter films are an adaptation of the books...you cannot include everything in the books and have them translate into good movies on a consistent basis. If that could be done, JK might as well direct the movies.

Rather, the approach should be taken in similar fashion to the way Peter Jackson handled the LOTR trilogy. There is SOOOO much in those books to sort through and a LOT of stuff was left out of the films. However, I thought (and obviously many--including the Academy Awards voters--agree with me) that the films were fantastic. They really CAPTURE THE SPIRIT of the books, which in my opinion was nearly as important as plot continuity with the novels.

Having said that, OotP must be a darker film in order to be a success in my eyes. It must really illustrate how corrupt Umbridge was, how rebellious and risky DA was, how Harry struggled with Occlumency, how Snape was disliked (but given the benefit of the doubt) by everyone in the Order, how Harry now WANTS to impress girls, and it ABSOLUTELY MUST do the ending justice. By that I mean all that went down at the Ministry of Magic should be adapted carefully with a fast and exciting pace...whereby a SPECTACULAR one-on-one battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort conclude the movie.

Oh yeah, and there's this thing called the prophecy...pretty important too lol.

Originally posted by lionlover2053
Yeah, I would have to say that filmaking is clearly an art all by itself. The Harry Potter films are an adaptation of the books...you cannot include everything in the books and have them translate into good movies on a consistent basis. If that could be done, JK might as well direct the movies.

Rather, the approach should be taken in similar fashion to the way Peter Jackson handled the LOTR trilogy. There is SOOOO much in those books to sort through and a LOT of stuff was left out of the films. However, I thought (and obviously many--including the Academy Awards voters--agree with me) that the films were fantastic. They really CAPTURE THE SPIRIT of the books, which in my opinion was nearly as important as plot continuity with the novels.

Having said that, OotP must be a darker film in order to be a success in my eyes. It must really illustrate how corrupt Umbridge was, how rebellious and risky DA was, how Harry struggled with Occlumency, how Snape was disliked (but given the benefit of the doubt) by everyone in the Order, how Harry now WANTS to impress girls, and it ABSOLUTELY MUST do the ending justice. By that I mean all that went down at the Ministry of Magic should be adapted carefully with a fast and exciting pace...whereby a SPECTACULAR one-on-one battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort conclude the movie.

Oh yeah, and there's this thing called the prophecy...pretty important too lol.

Yes, the L.R. films certainly "captured the spirit" - but were also over-simplified, or, perhaps, over-"Hollywoodized," in my opinion. The scenes that my friends (at least) remember the most were the ridiculous scenes of Legolas and his acrobatics. But that's a whole seperate topic.

Of all the H.P. films, I've found P.O.A. the most enjoyable, although I definitely loved the first two. But I was slightly disturbed by the amount of alteration towards the end of the story in the P.O.A. adaptation. Its almost like two endings.

I found G.O.F. disappointing overall, although it had its moments. A sad loss was S.P.E.W., but it was inevitable in a screen-adaptation. I think that the reported losses in the O.P. adaptation might be quite detrimental.